1981/82 Marine Mammal -. * r'rotection Act 

Annual Report 

June 1982 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric &Administration t 

National Marine Fisheries Service I 
Marine Mammal 

Protection Act of 1 972 

Annual Report 

April 1,1981, to arch 31,1982 

LIBRARY 

I N.O.A.A. 

U. S. Dept. of Commer-%i . J 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary 

~ational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

John V. Byrne, Administrator 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

William G. Gordon. Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 
THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE 

Washington. D.C. 20230 

14 1982 

President of the Senate 

Speaker of the House of Representatives 

Dear Sirs: 

I am pleased to submit the Annual Report of the Department of Commerce 

concerning administration of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 

for the period of April 1, 1981 through March 31, 1982, as required by 

Section 103(f) of the Act. 

The Department of Commerce is responsible for implementing the Act with 

respect to whales and porpoises of the order Cetecea and seals and sea 

lions of the suborder Pinnipedia. The report details the activities of 

the Department concerning these marine mammals. 

Sincerely, 

Secretary of Commerce d 

Enclosure 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction ................................................. 1 

Sumary ...................................................... 2 

Part I - 1981 amendments to the Act ............................ 4 

Implementation of the amendments ...................... 11 

Part I1 - Administration ........................................ 13 

Permits - incidental take of marine mammals during 

commercial fishing .................................. 13 

Permits - scientific research and public display ...... 15 

Contracts to study marine mammal/fishery interactions . 17 

Marine mammal stranding network ....................... 21 

International programs/activities ..................... 22 

Legal actions ........................................ 26 

Law enforcement ....................................... 28 

Part I11 - Management and research programs ..................... 30 

Cetacean programs ..................................... 30 

Bowhead whale ....................................... 30 

Management ...................................... 30 

Research ....................................... 31 

Gray whale .......................................... 32 

Management ...................................... 32 

Research ........................................ 32 

Humpback whale ...................................... 33 

Management ...................................... 33 

Research ........................................ 35 

North Atlantic cetaceans ............................ 35 

Management ...................................... 35 

Research ................................. 36 

Bottlenose dolphin .................................. 37 

Management ...................................... 37 

Research ........................................ 38 

Dall's porpoise. .................................... 39 

Management ...................................... 39 

Research ........................................ 39 

Porpoise and the tuna purse-seine fishery ........... 41 

Management ...................................... 43 

Research ........................................ 43 

Platforms of opportunity program ................ 45 

Pinniped programs ..................................... 47 

Channel Islands National Park. California ........... 47 

Management ...................................... 47 

Research ........................................ 47 

Hawaiian monk seal .................................. 48 

Management ...................................... 48 

Research ........................................ 49 

Northern fur seal-Pribilof Islands. Alaska .......... 49 

Management ...................................... 49 

Research ....................................... 50 

North Atlantic pinnipeds ............................ 50 

Part IV - Appendixes 

Tables 

Laws and treaties 

Federal register notices and regulations 

iii 
Figure 1 - Efforts to recover and rehabilitate a stranded young sperm whale off 

the Coast of Maine. Pbtograph by Scott Kraus, New Ergland Aquarium, 

Boston, Xass. 
INTRODUCTION 

Passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (the Act or MMPA) 

in 1972 committed the United States to continuing long-term 

management and research programs that would conserve and protect 

these animals. Although there are a few exceptions, the Act 

placed a moratorium on taking or importing marine mammals or 

their products into the United States. In addition, persons 

subject to U.S. jurisdiction on the high seas are included in the 

moratorium. In 1976, U.S. control of marine mammals was expanded 

by the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA) 

to include the 200 mile fishery conservatio,n zone (FCZ). 

The Act delegated authority and responsibility for oceanic 

marine mammals to the Secretary of the Agency where the National 

Oceanic and ~tmospheric Administration (NOAA) operates. Under 

NOAA, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is responsible 

for species of the order Cetacea, whales and dolphins, and the 

Order Carnivora, suborder Pinnipedia, seals and sea lions, except 

walruses. The Department of the Interior is responsible for 

dugongs, manatees, polar bears, sea otters, and walruses. 

The moratorium does not apply to every marine mammal species. 

Those already managed under international agreements, such as the 

northern fur seal, are exempt as long as the agreements further 

the purposes of the Act. Also, under a permit system, marine 

mammals may be taken for scientific research, public display, and 

incidental to commercial fishing. The 1981 amendments to the Act 

add two categories of "small take" to the moratorium exception. 

Further, certain natives of Alaska may take marine mammals for 

subsistence use and production of handicrafts. Although the Act 

made management of marine mammals a Federal government 

responsibility, it provides for the return of management to the 

States. 

Functions of the NMFS include granting or denying requests 

for exemptions, issuing permits, carrying out research and 

management programs, enforcing the Act, participating in 

international programs, and issuing rules and regulations. To 

carry out its mission to conserve and protect marine mammals, 

NMFS cooperates with the States, conservation organizations, the 

public, other Federal agencies and many constituent groups 

including scientific researchers, the public display community, 

and the Marine Mammal Commission. 

NMFS's marine mammal research programs are the responsibility 

of the Southwest Fisheries Center, La Jolla, Calif. ; the 

Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, Fla. ; the Northeast Fisheries 

Center, Woods Hole, Mass.; and the National Marine Mammal 

Laboratory (NMML), Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center, 
Seattle, Wash. Management programs are carried out at NMFS 

regional off ices in Gloucester, Mass. ; St. Petersburg, Fla. ; 

Seattle, Wash.; Terminal Island, Calif.; and Juneau, Alaska. 

This annual report to Congress is available from the Off ice 

of Marine Mammals and Endangered Species, NMFS, Washington, D. C. 

20235. 

Summary 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act has been in effect for 

almost a decade. Although many issues remain, progress has been 

made in solving problems addressed by the Act. Progress made in 

reducing the numbers of porpoises killed during purse seining for 

yellowfin tuna (over 350,000 in 1972, but below 20,000 from 1978 

through 1981) was reflected in the 1981 amendments to the Act. 

In the original Act, one of the immediate goals was to reduce the 

numbers of porpoises killed to a level approaching zero. The new 

amendments clarify the zero mortality goal so that it can be 

satisfied by the tuna industry's continued use of the best marine 

mammal safety techniques and equipment that are economically and 

technologically practicable. 

Another successful program administered by NMFS is a permit 

system for taking marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing 

and taking or importing marine mammals for scientific research or 

public display. Not only must NMFS decide in a timely manner 

whether to issue a permit, it must also monitor all currently 

valid permits which numbered 269 during this year. 

Because most marine mammals are highly migratory, we have 

international agreements to protect them. The United States 

actively participates in organizations such as the International 

Whaling Commission (IWC). The United States has pressed for a 

moratorium on commercial whaling in the IWC since 1972. That 

year, the total catch limit was about 46,000 whales; this year, 

it is down to 14,070. We will continue to support the lowest 

catch limits possible and will call for strict conformity with 

IWC regulations by all whaling countries. The IWC also sets 

quotas on the number of bowhead whales that can be taken for 

subsistence by Alaska natives. Another success is a cooperative 

agreement between NMFS and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission 

(AEWC) which provides for cooperative management of the hunts 

from 1981 through 1983. 

In 1972, the Act noted that for many marine mammals, there 

was not enough information to protect or wisely manage their 

populations. Therefore, NMFS has directed its research programs 

toward a better understanding of all marine mammal populations 

under its jurisdiction. Although not complete, our basic 

knowledge of these animals has increased. NMFS has assessed the 

numbers of many populations and has obtained additional data on 
such basic life history aspects as how often and when and where 

these animals give birth, their weight at birth, as sub-adults, 

and adults, how long they live, what they eat, who are their 

predators, and what affects their habitat. Tables in the 

appendix reflect our current knowledge of population numbers,and 

the Status of Stocks Section (1980/81 Annual Report) includes 

biological data. 

Although NMFS is the lead Federal government agency on many 

marine mammal projects, other agencies also are involved in 

marine mammal research. These agencies are usually involved 

because activities which they authorize affect marine mammals. 

This is the case of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) which has 

responsibility under the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act 

for predicting, detecting and mitigating, the adverse effects of 

OCS oil and gas development. NMFS, along with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, is responsible under the MMPA and the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) for reviewing proposed actions and 

advising the BLM of the measures that may be needed to assure 

that the proposed actions will not be to the disadvantage of 

marine mammals and other wildlife. 

One of the long-standing problems addressed by the 1981 

amendments was the issue of the return of management of marine 

mammals to the States. For example, the State of Alaska tried to 

regain its management for six years under the original Act and 

did not succeed. Under the new amendments, NMFS has proposed 

regulations concerning return of management and is working with 

the State of Alaska to facilitate this action. 

Following in this report is a discussion of the 1981 

amendments and actions taken by NMFS from April 1, 1981 through 

March 31, 1982 to administer the requirements of the Act. 
PART I 

1981' Amendments to the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

Last fall, for the first time since passage of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act of 1972, substantial changes were made to 

the Act to improve its operation. The amendments, which became 

effective October 9, 1981, covered 

o tuna/porpoise and zero mortality 

o return of management to states 

o small take of marine mammals 

o beached and stranded animals 

o marking and tagging 

o changes in definitions 

o reauthorization 

Tuna/Porpoise and Immediate Goal of Zero Mortality 

The amendments restated the "immediate goalw test in the case 

of yellowfin tuna fishermen to require "the incidental kill or 

incidental serious injury of marine mammals.. .be reduced to 

insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious 

injury rate; provided that this goal shall be satisfied.. .by a 

continuation of the application of the best marine mammal safety 

techniques and . equipment that are economically and 

technologically practicable. It 

This restatement clarifies the view that Congress intends the 

industry to apply the "best economically and technologically 

practicable marine mammal safety techniquestt and recognizes the 

progress of the industry in saving porpoises. The House of 

Representatives Report notes that the change will not affect the 

Secretary's authority to issue regulations, to set quotas, or to 

fulfill other obligations under the MMPA. 

Return of Management to States 

The amendments adopt a new approach to returning management 

authority to State$, Congress found the previous approach 

involving Federal Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearings, and 

National Environmental Policy Act procedures to be unworkable. 

Alaska, for example, tried for nine years to regain its management 

authority and never succeeded. The new approach creates a system 

that Congress felt was more likely to achieve the timely return 

of marine mammal management authority to States. This approach 

contains four distinct phases: 
1. State Request 

The State must request return of management from the 

Secretary of the appropriate Federal agency. The Secretary must 

find, after notice and opportunity for public comment, that the 

State has developed and will implement a program for the 

conservation and management of the species requested that is 

consistent with the MMPA and international treaty obligations, 

and requires humane taking. The program cannot permit taking 

unless the State has determined that the species is at its 

optimum sustainable population (OSP) level and has specified the 

maximum number of animals of that species that may be taken 

without reducing the species below OSP. These determinations 

must be final, implemented under state law, and, if required, a 

cooperative allocation agreement with the appropriate Federal 

agencies must be implemented. 

The program cannot permit taking that exceeds the maximum 

number allowed and, in the case of subsistence uses, cannot 

permit taking of a number of animals that would be inconsistent 

with maintaining the species at OSP. Also, it cannot permit the 

taking of the species for scientific research and public display 

purposes, except for taking by, or for, the State. The program 

must provide procedures for acquiring and evaluating data 

relating to OSP and the maximum take which could be allowed and, 

if required, for amending these determinations, provide 

procedures for resolving differences between the State and the 

Secretary that may arise during the development of a cooperative 

agreement, and provide for the submission of an annual report to 

the Secretary regarding the administration of the program. 

The amendments make additional , important changes for the 

State of Alaska and Alaska natives. First, the Secretary cannot 

transfer management authority unless Alaska has adopted and will 

implement a statute and regulations that ensures that the taking 

of marine mammals for subsistence uses is accomplished in a nonwasteful manner; that subsistence take will be the priority 

consumptive use of the species; and if subsistence taking must be 

restricted, that such restriction will be based on the customary 

and direct dependence upon the species as the mainstay of 

1 ivelihood, local residency, and the availability of alternative 

resources. 

In addition, the Secretary must find that the State has 

adopted a statute or regulation that allows non-subsistence uses 

of marine mammals only if the State finds that these uses will 

not have a significant adverse impact upon subsistence uses and 

that implementing regulations to the maximum extent practicable, 

provide economic ~pportunities for the residents of rural coastal 

villages of Alaska who engage in subsistence uses of that 

species. 

The amendments specifically ove.rrule the decision in People 

of Togiak v. U.S. which held that Alaskan natives cannot be 
regulated by a State on return of management by the Federal 

government. The amendments revise the native exemption to permit 

State regulation of natives if the procedures outlined in the 

amendments are followed. 

2. State OSP Hearing 

After the agency notices the State request for a return of 

management authority, allows an opportunity for public comment, 

and makes the appropriate findings, the State must proceed to the 

second phase of determining the OSP of the marine mammals it 

wants to manage. Until the State undertakes a hearing and 

administrative process to make these determinations, the 

appropriate Federal agency continues to manage the moratorium on 

all takings and imports in the State and determines which takings 

may be permitted. 

3. State Management Authority 

The third phase involves the State assuming management 

authority which takes effect af ter the State's determinations are 

final and implemented under State law and after a cooperative 

agreement between the State and the Federal agencies is 

implemented. Then the legal responsibility for management passes 

from the Federal government to the State. State implementation 

of its management authority is permanent; it cannot be curtailed 

unless one of the Federal agencies successfully prosecutes a 

revocation or the State voluntarily returns its authority to the 

Federal government. 

4. Federal Revocation or a State's Voluntary Return 

The final phase involves potential Federal revocation of the 

management authority previously returned to a State or the 

State's voluntary return of management. The grounds for 

revocation are that the State program is not being implemented or 

is being implemented in a fashion inconsistent with the Act or 

the State program. The Secretary may not revoke any management 

transfer without first providing a written notice of intent to 

revoke and a statement of reasons for the notice and allowing the 

State 90 days to implement necessary remedial measures. When a 

revocation by the Secretary becomes final, or if a State 

voluntarily returns management authority, the Secretary regulates 

the taking of a species or stock within the State according to 

the MMPA. 

Small Take of Marine Mammals 

The amendments attempt to solve another problem under the 

MMPA; the unintentional taking of small numbers of animals when 

the taking does not qualify for one of the exceptions to the 

general moratorium on all takings (and imports) or a permit 

applicant faces a cumbersome administrative process. The new 

amendment alleviates the permit, hearing, and MMPA regulatory 
scheme for small takes by commercial fishermen or other specified 

activities in specified geographical areas. Neither of the new 

exceptions requires a permit, although for specified activities, 

NMFS will have to develop regulations and other means to 

administer these exceptions. 

During any five-year period, the Secretary shall allow the 

incidental, but not the intentional, taking by commercial 

fishermen of small numbers of marine mammals. Before allowing 

such a take, the Secretary, after notice and opportunity for 

public comment, must find that the total of such taking will have 

a negligible impact on the species and must provide guidelines 

pertaining to the establishment of a cooperative system for 

monitoring the take. A finding of negligible impact cannot be 

made if the species is depleted. The Secretary is directed to 

withdraw or suspend the permission to take marine mammals for a 

"time certaint1 under this provision if it is found, after notice 

and opportunity for public comment, that the taking is having 

more than a negligible impact on the species or that the 

purposes, policies, and goals, of the MMPA would be better served 

by applying the regular MMPA permit procedures. 

Also, the Secretary shall allow, upon request by United 

States citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region, the 

incidental, but not the intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals. This permission may be granted for a period of 5 

years or less. Such taking may be allowed only if the species 

involved is not depleted and if the Secretary, after notice and 

opportunity for p,ublic comment, finds that the total taking will 

have a negligible impact on the species and its habitat, and on 

the availability of the species for subsistence uses; prescribes 

regulations setting forth permissible methods of taking and other 

means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the 

species and its habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and other areas of similar 

significance; and prescribes regulations pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. The Secretary is 

directed to withdraw or suspend the permission to take marine 

mammals under this provision for a "time certain" if it is found 

after notice and opportunity for public comment, that the 

regulations regarding methods of taking, monitoring, or reporting 

are not being substantially complied with, or the taking is 

having, or may have, more than a negligible impact on the 

species. Permission to take in specified activities may be 

suspended without notice or public comment if the Secretary 

determines that an emergency exists which poses a significant 

risk to the species concerned. No emergency suspension pertains 

to small takes by commercial fishermen. 

The House Report notes that the intent is to make these two 

new exceptions available to persons whose taking of marine 

mammals is in£ requent, unavoidable, or accidental. "Small 

numbersw is left undefined by the Act. The Report notes that 
"negligible" is intended to mean an impact which is able to be 

disregarded. Yet, the two exceptions differ. The fishermen's 

exception only allows the establishment of agency guidelines for 

cooperative monitoring by fishermen while the special activity 

exception allows for agency regulations of reporting and 

monitoring. 

Beached and Stranded Animals 

This amendment replaces a section of the Act which allowed 

state and local officials to take marine mammals for the purpose 

of proteating the animals or returning them to their natural 

habitat. The new provision clarifies the old authority and 

extends it to Federal officials so that they, as well as state or 

local employees, may "takew marine mammals in the course of their 

official duties. The reasons for such taking are the protection 

and welfare of the mammal, protection of the public health and 

welfare, or the non-lethal removal of nuisance animals. 

Under the authority of the Act prior to the amendments, NMFS 

established a regional network of institutions, biologists, and 

state and local officials to handle beached and stranded marine 

mammal problems in the individual States. 

Marking and Tagging 

This amendment authorizes the Secretary, after providing 

notice and opportunity for a hearing in the affected area, to 

prescribe regulations requiring the marking, tagging, and 

reporting of marine mammals taken by Alaskan natives pursuant to 

the native exemption. This provision enables the Secretary to 

gather sufficient data on subsistence take by Alaska natives 

before it is regulated by the State. The marking and tagging of 

animals also allows the Secretary to manitor the disposition of 

the native harvest to ensure that any commercial handicraft use 

of marine mamma1 products meets the criteria set forth in the 

Act. 

Chanaes in Definitions 

The definition of "depletedw is altered to remove a decline 

"to a significant degree over a period of years" as a basis for a 

depletion finding. Now, I1depleted" means a species or stock 

listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species 

Act or below OSP. 

The adjective "optimum" is removed throughout the MMPA 

wherever it precedes the words "carrying capacity. " This 

eliminates the circularity of definition that existed between OSP 

and optimum carrying capacity . The administrative focus is 

always on the lower end of the OSP range (maximum net 

productivity) because a species or stock below this level of 

health would be depleted and, except for scientific research, all 

taking permits would then be prohibited. The upper end of the 
range, carrying capacity, is critical in situations of 

overpopulation, which has not been of concern with any of the 

species under NOAA's jurisdiction. 

Reauthorization 

The new law reauthorizes the marine mammal programs of the 

Department of Commerce, Department of the Interior, and the 

Marine Mammal Commission through fiscal year 1984. Information 

copies of the MMPA with the new amendments are available from the 

Off ice of Marine Mammals and Endangered Species, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 

20235. 
Figure 2 - Ringed seal in Alaska. Photograph by L. Consiglieri, NbFS. 
Implementation of the 1981 Amendments 

Small Take of Marine Mammals 

After the amendments became effective, NMFS took steps to 

implement the amendment relating to a "small- take" of marine 

mammals by U.S. citizens engaged in a specific activity in a 

specific geographical location other than commercial fishing. 

NMFS published a request in the Federal Register on November 20, 

requesting in£ orma tion and an advance notice of proposed 

rulemakinq. The Notice solicited information and suggestions 

from interested persons on types of activites that might be 

authorized under the "small take" Section 101(a) (5) of the Act. 

NMFS was aware that seismic operations on the ice in the 

Beaufort Sea might affect ringed seals, and that seismic 

operators would probably request an authorization under the new 

amendment. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) , Department of the 

Interior, furnished information concerning oil and gas activities 

on or over the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and potential 

impacts of on-ice or waterborne geophysical surveys; logistical 

support for exploration, development, and production activities; 

OCS drilling and exploration related activities; and OCS 

development and production related activities. 

The International Association of Geophysical Contractors 

(IAGC) and the National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA) 

jointly submitted informa tion concerning on-ice marine 

geophysical exploration off the North Slope of Alaska. 

Information included a description of the activities, potential 

impacts on ringed seals and their habitat, and suggested means of 

monitoring and reporting. ARC0 Exploration Company provided 

information on both onshore and offshore geophysical surveys in 

the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, including a discussion of 

potential impacts to certain whale species during open water 

surveys and to ringed seals during on-ice surveys, to their 

habitats, and on their availability for subsistence purposes. 

Later, NMFS received a formal request from the IAGC to allow the 

taking of ringed seals incidental to on-ice marine geophysical 

activities in the Beaufort Sea. 

The Proposed Regulations Governing Small Takes of Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Specified ~ctivities (50 CFR Part 228) 

appeared in the Federal ~egister, March 3, 1982. In addition, 

specific regulations to govern the taking of ringed seals 

incidental to on-ice seismic exploratory activities in the 

Beaufort Sea from 1982 through 1986 were proposed after NMFS made 

a preliminary fi~ding of "negligible impact" on ringed seals. 

After a 39-day public review and comment period, the NMFS will 

decide whether to publish final regulations. The Federal 

Register Notice also requested companies that will be conducting 

activities based on the final regulations to submit requests for 
Letters of ~uthorization, the mechanism NMFS will use to 

authorize the taking of marine mammals. 

Return of State Management Regulations 

The NMFS has proposed regulations to implement the new 

amendments to the Act concerning return of marine mammal 

management to States. The NMFS and the Fish and Wildlife Service 

plan to have corresponding regulations published simultaneously 

for public comment by May 1982. 

These regulations are designed to guide State applicants 

through the new return of management process established by 

Congress. The proposed regulations will establish procedures for 

the transfer of marine mammal management authority to the States, 

the form, and minimum requirements of a State application, the 

relationship between Federal and state wildlife agencies, both 

prior and subsequent to the transfer, and the revocation and 

return to NMFS of management authority. 
PART I1 - ADMINISTRATION 

General Permits - Incidental Take of Marine Mammals During 

Commercial Fishing Operations 

A general permit system established under the Act authorizes 

the incidental taking of marine mammals by domestic and foreign 

fishermen during commercial fishing operations. General permits 

are issued to foreign fishing associations whose nations hold a 

Governing Fishery Agreement with the United States; the agreement 

allows them to fish in the U.S. fishery conservation zone. 

Tables 1 and 2 include a list of foreign and domestic fishing 

corporations with permits and the numbers of marine mammals they 

are allowed to take. The general permit to a foreign country 

involving the largest number of animals was given to Japan for 

1981, 1982, and 1983 to take 5,500 Dall's porpoise, 25 northern 

sea lions, and 450 northern fur seals each year during high-seas 

salmon gillnet fishing. 

Domestic fishermen, except those involved in the yellowfin 

tuna fishery, are allowed to apply for certificates of inclusion 

under general permits granted to the Pacific Coast Federation of 

Fishermen's ~ssociation. These permits, which were issued 

December 30, 1980, have been extended to December 31, 1983, and 

allow a take of 2,480 animals each year. 

The requirements for domestic fishermen to obtain a 

certificate of iqclusion have been simplified and the previously 

required $10.00 fee has been waived to encourage fishermen to 

provide data on the incidental catch of marine mammals. In the 

State of Washington, certificate applications were sent out with 

State fishing license renewal notices, and, in Oregon, 

applications were sent to all license holders. 

The Northwest Region's effort to encourage commercial 

fishermen to obtain the certificates has resulted in a 

substantial increase in the number issued to commercial 

fishermen; 87 were issued in 1980 and 3,000 in 1981. The number 

of reports received on marine mammal/£ isheries interactions and 

incidental take increased from 13 in 1974-80 to over 200 in 1981. 

The Southeast Region issued 74 vessel certificates of 

inclusion to 14 companies. One incidental take of a bottlenose 

dolphin was reported in the menhaden purse-seine fishery in the 

Gulf of Mexico. 

The Alaska Region issued 42 certificates to domestic 

fishermen in 1981. There were no reports of any incidental 

takings by these permit holders. 

In the domestic fishery, the permit involving the largest 

numbers of animals was issued to the ~merican Tunaboat 
Association to take 20,500 porpoise each year from 1981 through 

1985. In 1981, the total allowable take of marine mammals under 

both domestic and foreign commercial fishing permits was 29,474 

animals. 
Scientific Research and Public Display Permits 

One exception to the moratorium on taking is the provision 

which allows permits to be issued for taking or importing marine 

mammals for scientific research or public display. Three steps 

must be taken before a permit can be granted. 

1. Receipt and initial review of the application by NMFS, 

publication of a notice of receipt in the Federal 

~e~ister, and transmittal of theeapplication to the 

Marine Mammal Commission for review; 

2. A 30-day review of the application by NMFS, the 

Commission, the public, and other Federal agencies; and 

3. Final processing by NMFS, including consideration of 

comments, and approval or denial of the application. 

The primary objective of the permit system is to ensure that 

the removal of animals from the wild will not harm the population 

or their ecosystem. 

During the past year, 72 applications were considered. Of 

these, 60 have been resolved; 34 scientific research permits were 

issued, and 16 public display permits were issued. There were 87 

modifications, amendments, or authorizations to permits. NMFS 

monitored 269 permits that had valid 'authorizations for take or 

related activities. 

In addition, NMFS issues Letters of Agreement for animals not 

covered by permits. These Agreements may be used only for 

animals already in captivity and usually involve placing 

rehabilitated beached or stranded animals into a suitable public 

display facility. Since no taking is involved, most Agreements 

are handled at the Regional level. NMFS encourages using these 

animals rather than taking additional ones from the wild. 

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), 

Department of Agriculture, is responsible under the Animal 

Walfare Act (AWA) for the humane handling, care, treatment, and 

transportation of marine mammals. Standards developed by APHIS 

are incorporated as conditions to all permits issued by NMFS, 

both foreign and domestic, that involve captive marine mammals. 

A Cooperative Agreement by APHIS, Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

NMFS ensures that standards are applied uniformly to all marine 

mammals in captivity; provides guidance to persons responsible 

for the marine mammals; and ensures that all responsibilities of 

the agencies are inet. 

During 1981, NMFS revised the application instructions 

package. In addition to clarifying the instructions, this 
package gives background information on permit modification 

procedures, Letters of Agreement, and related topics such as 

requirements under the ~nimal Welfare Act and Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora. Continuous updating of the instructions have simplified 

the permit process as evidenced by a 60 percent reduction in the 

number of incomplete appl ications. In addition, permitted 

activities are now more often covered by authorizations or 

modifications to existing permits which serves to simplify the 

system for both the applicant and reviewers. 

The following tables which appear in the appendix provide a 

detailed overview of the permit program: 

o common and scientific names of marine mammals requested in 

scientific research/public display permit applications 

(table 3) 

o summary of permit applications (table 4) ; 

o cetacean take requested in scientific research/public display 

permit applications ( table 5) ; 

o pinniped take requested in scientific research/public display 

permit applications (table 6) ; 

o cetacean take authorized by scientific research/public display 

permits (table 7); 

o pinniped take authorized by scientific research/public display 

permits ( table 8) ; 

o authorized take for permanent removal from the wild - 

cetaceans ( table 9 ) ; 

o authorized take for permanent removal from the wild - 

pinnipeds (table 10) ; 
~arine Mammals - Fisheries Interactions 

when marine mammals interact with sport and commercial 

fisheries, they are sometimes killed, injured, or harassed, 

during fishing operations. They take or damage fish caught on 

lines or in traps and nets; they damage fishing gear during these 

or when they accidentally become entangled; and, 

sometimes they compete with fishermen for the same fish and 

shellfish resources. 

Before the Act, sport and bounty hunting and various forms of 

harassment were used to control the distribution, abundance, and 

behavior of marine mammals. The Act imposed a moratorium on 

such activities and, in recent years, animals in certain areas 

apparently have become more numerous and bolder in their 

interactions with fishermen and fishing gear. The most acute 

problems seem to involve seals, sea lions, and the salmon gill 

net fisheries in several areas of Alaska and the Columbia River 

in Washington and Oregon. 

Columbia River Study 

Early in 1980, with funding from the National Marine 

~isheries Service, the Washington Department of Fish and Game, in 

cooperation with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

initiated a study of marine mammals-fisheries interactions in the 

Columbia River and adjacent waters. Partial support was also 

provided by the Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program 

and the Marine Mammal Commission. 

The general objectives of this study are to 

o determine how marine mammals affect, and are affected by, 

sport and commercial fisheries in the Columbia River and 

adjacent waters; 

o provide the information needed to define the optimum 

sustainable population levels (as required by the MMPA) 

of selected species of marine mammals in the study area; 

continue recent efforts to monitor marine mammal populations 

along portions of the coast of Oregon and Washington; and 

identify and evaluate methods to reduce the incidental 

take of marine mammals, damage to gear, and the loss of 

fish. 

Results of the first two years' study indicate little 

'action between the sport salmon fishery and marine mammals. 

err interaction between marine mammals and the commercial 

17 
gillnet salmon fishery was substantial. Damage to fish catch 

ranged from 1 percent of Chinook salmon caught in the Columbia 

River to 31 percent of Chinook salmon caught in the Grays Harbor 

area of Washington. Damage (measured by percent of damaged fish) 

was consistently higher when fish catches were low. Harbor seals 

appear to be responsible for nearly all damage to fish caught in 

gillnets. Although, sea lions also damage fishing gear when they 

migrate into the area in winter. 

Most seals that are entangled in nets drown or are killed 

before they are removed from the nets. Seals are also harassed 

with gunfire in attempts to scare them away from the nets. 

Incidental take rates have been sampled, but reliable estimates 

of incidental take levels have not yet been made. However, the 

incidental take of harbor seals has not been sufficiently high to 

suppress a growing harbor seal population; since 1976, the annual 

rate of increase in numbers of harbor seal pups born has been 17 

percent. The normal prey of harbor seals in the Columbia River 

consists primarily of fish of 29 different species including 

lamprey, 2 species of crustacea, and 1 cephalopod. 

California 

In 1981, the California Department of Fish and Game completed 

the second year of a two year investigation of marine 

mammal/fishery interactions. These studies which were contracted 

cooperatively by the Southwest Fisheries Center and the Southwest 

Region will be published as a Southwest ~isheries Center 

Administrative Report. In summary, the report states that 

California sea lions were found to interact in varying degrees 

with most fin fish fisheries, harbor seals interact with gillnet 

fisheries for herring in coastal bays and salmon in the Klamath 

River, and pilot whales interact with the squid fishery in the 

Southern California Bight. Economic loss to the fisheries has 

been estimated, but observed and reported interactions were too 

infrequent to allow accurate assessment of impacts to the marine 

mammal populations. 

The second phase of this program, population assessment, was 

implemented in 1981 when the Southwest ~isheries Center and 

Southwest Region jointly funded a contract with the California 

Department of Fish and Game to collect information necessary to 

assess the resident harbor seal population in California. The 

contract included studies of methods to reduce marine mammalfishery interactions, further investigation of the take of marine 

mammals in the round-haul fisheries, and a survey of attitudes 

towards marine mammals among patrons of the charter boat fleet. 

Maine 

The university of Maine, under a contract funded by NMFS, is 

studying the extent of marine mammal-f isheries con£ lict in the 

Gulf of Maine. The study includes the distribution and abundance 

of harbor seals as we11 as habitat use patterns, population 
discreteness, and degree of harassment by humans. In addition, 

the extent and impact of all marine mammal-fisheries interactions 

in the Gulf of Maine is being investigated, including incidental 

take, subsistence take, and economic impact on fisheries. 
Figure 3 - NMFS employee, Dana Seagas, with stranded pilot whale on the beach of mylar Harbor, San Miguel 

Island, Califonria. Photograph by Robert L. DeLong, WS, 

- - - 
Marine Mammal Stranding Network 

NMFS encourages its regions to develop and assist in 

operating a Marine Mammal Stranding Network. The ~egional 

Networks include individuals and organizations cooperating with a 

scientific director and a NMFS coordinator. Authorized members 

of a network may collect scientific specimen materials, record 

the event with the Regional Coordinator, and are obligated to 

assist local and Federal authorities in the disposal of the 

animals. Records of these strandings are forwarded to the 

Scientific Event Alert Network (SEAN), Smithsonian Institution, 

Washington, D.C. which publishes a monthly report and maintains a 

central computer file. 

Investigation of both live and dead stranded marine mammals 

provides information on the food habits, incidence of disease, 

and reproductive biology of many coastal species. The systematic 

collection of these data contributes to a baseline source of 

information which can be used to monitor changes in coastal 

marine ecosys tems. 

In the Southeast Region, a toll-free (800) telephone hotline, 

monitored on a 24-hour basis, receives stranding reports. A 

cadre of stranding reporters and a scientific coordinator for 

each southeastern state has been formed. Species identification 

aids, stranding data forms, and information posters were widely 

distributed in the southeastern coastal states, Puerto Rico and 

U.S. Virgin Islands. As of the summer of 1981, 257 stranded 

marine mammals have been reported to the Network. The major 

numbers of strandings were the Florida manatee - 137 ; bottlenose 

dolphin - 78; pigmy sperm whale - 11; dwarf sperm whale - 5; and 

rough toothed dolphin - 6; also, 12 sperm whales were involved in 

a mass stranding. 

In the Northwest Region, the Marine Mammal Stranding Network 

is developing a directory that identifies all participants and 

their functions and sets forth guidelines and necessary 

procedures. The Oregon State Department of h ran sport at ion, Parks 

and Recreation Division, has developed a "Marine Mammal Disposal 

Policy" for handling dead marine mammals on State beaches. 

The Southwest Region continues to organize and refine the 

California stranding network which provides a statewide system of 

communication to facilitate rapid retrieval of live animals to 

improve their chance of survival and to provide prompt 

notification of researchers. A directory of participating 

agencies and individuals is in preparation. 

Because of va'st distances, the inaccessibility of most of the 

coastline, and the expense involved in responding to strandings, 

the Alaska Region has not established a formal network. If rare 

or unusual species are involved, appropriate institutions are 

imnediately advised to allaw the recovery of specimens. 

2 1 
International Programs and Activities 

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) 

The International tuna/porpoise program approved by the 

Commission in 1977 was reviewed at the annual meeting in October 

1981 in Paris, France. A report was made on the status of the 

Commission Is efforts to place observers on tuna vessels operating 

in the eastern tropical Pacific. Although observer coverage of 

104 trips was planned in 1981, only 56 were covered before the 

end of the year; 6 of these were 1980 trips which carried over 

into 1981. The obstacles to completing the scheduled sampling 

have included delays in completing an agreement with Mexico 

concerning its participation in the program, the transfer of 

vessel registry from one country to another, and difficulties 

experienced by both participating nations and certain selected 

vessels. Data were collected from only 4 non-U.S. trips. New 

techniques and gear continue to be tested to reduce the 

incidental take of porpoise. 

International North Pacific Fisheries Commission (INPFC) 

The United States and Japan agreed in 1981 to a second 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to continue a cooperative 

marine mammal research program until June 1984. The first MOU 

was in effect from 1978 through 1981. The MOUvs were developed 

in connection with the International Convention for the High Seas 

the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean. 

At the March ' 1981 meeting of the Scientific Subcommittee of 

the Ad Hoc Committee on Marine Mammals, the U.S. presented a 

summary of the results of the 3-year cooperative research program 

which centered on the incidental take of Dallvs porpoise in the 

Japanese high seas gillnet fishery inside the fishery 

conservation zone. At the INPFC meeting in November, Japan 

presented results of the 3-year study to the Ad Hoc Committee on 

Marine Mammals, and the U.S. section presented a summary of 

research and some preliminary results of the 1981 field season. 

International Whaling Commission (IWC) 

A delegation from the United States attended the 33rd annual 

meeting of the IWC in Brighton, England, July 20 to 25, 1981. 

The United States has supported a moratorium on commercial 

whaling at every meeting of the IWC since 1972. That year, the 

total commercial catch limit was about 46,000 whales; this year 

it is down to 14,070. Although the complete moratorium on 

commercial whaling did not pass at the 1981 meeting, the 

Commission agreed to zero quotas on all stocks of sperm whales 

except the Northwest Pacific stock. Whaling for this stock after 

the 1981 season is prohibited until the IWC adopts alternative 

management measures based on advice from its Scientific 
Committee. In effect, this amounts to a moratorium on sperm 

whaling. The Commission also decided to extend its ban on the 

commercial use of cold grenade (non-exploding) harpoons to minke 

whales beginning with the 1982-83 pelagic and 1983 coastal 

seasons. This decision, which has been objected to by Brazil, 

Iceland, Japan, Norway, and the Soviet Union, reflects the IWC s 

concern for humane killing by reducing the time between 

harpooning and death, and extends the ban adopted last year to 

all existing commercial whaling ships that use deck mounted 

harpoon guns. 

The United States will continue to press for a moratorium on 

commercia'l whaling, a hallmark of U.S. policy in the IWC, and 

until this is achieved, we will press for the lowest catch limits 

possible and strict conformity with IWC regulations by all 

whaling countries. See Table 11 in the appendix for a listing of 

the commercial catch limits set by the 33rd Meeting. The 34th 

annual meeting of the IWC will be held in Brighton from July 19 

to 24, 1982. 

Antarctic Minke Whale Assessment Cruise. Intensive commercial 

exploitation of minke whales beqan - in the ~ntarctic durins the 

1971-72 whaling season and is continuing under regulations 

adopted by the IWC. Since population estimates are not reliable, 

the IWC initiated a tagging and survey program during the 1978-79 

whaling season to provide a more reliable basis for management 

decisions. The survey, conducted from ships provided by Japan 

and the Soviet Union, continued during the 1980-1981 and 1981- 

1982 whaling seasons and involved scientists from several 

countries, including the United States. The Commission agreed to 

consider any new data or analyses of the stock at a special 

meeting. This meeting, held in March 1982, agreed unanimously to 

take no action which means the ban will remain on further whaling 

from this stock. Since Japan, the only country involved in 

commercial whaling for this stock, objected to the ban, the issue 

is expected to be renewed at the July 1982 annual meeting. 

Results of the assessment will be provided to the IWC1s 

Scientific Committee and used to improve management of minke 

whales in the Antarctic. 

North Pacific Fur Seal Commission (NPFSC) 

The protocol extending the Interim Convention on Conservation 

of North Pacific Fur Seals agreed to and signed by the four 

parties 1980 was ratified by the U.S. Senate on June 11, 1981 and 

will be in force until 1984. An understanding was added to the 

resolution for ratif i~ation which states It is the understanding 

of the Senate that appropriate studies shall be undertaken to (1) 

determine the fur seal feeding habits and food requirements and 

the at-sea migration and distribution patterns of various age/sex 

classes of fur seals; (2) determine the impact of any possible 

adjustments in the size of the harvest on the Pribilof Island 

residents, the fur seal herd, and the Bering Sea ecosystem; (3) 

in concurrence with the Aleut, determine, if necessary, the 
impact of various mutually acceptable alternative sources of 

employment for ~ribilof Island residents on those residents, the 

fur seal herd, and the Bering Sea ecosystem. The results of 

these studies shall be reported to the Congress by the 

~dministration for referral to the appropriate committees no 

later than March 1, 1984. 

"Any alterations in the level of the annual commercial 

harvest of North Pacific fur seals should be consistent with the 

development of a stable, diversified and enduring economy for the 

Aleut residents of the ~ribilof Islands. Accordingly, the Senate 

declares its interest in exploring the appropriateness of, among 

other possibilities, increasing Aleut control over operation of 

the harvest consistent with the terms of the Interim Convention. 

"Furthermore, the Senate declares that: (1) the Secretary of 

State should continue to strive to conform the Interim Convention 

with the purposes and policies of the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act of 1972, as amended, and: (2) the United States may initiate 

adjustments in the harvest level or the U.S. share thereof, 

providing any adjustments are in conformity with the terms of the 

Interim Convention, the health of the fur seal herd, and the 

rights of the Aleut people." 

The North Pacific Fur Seal Commission was established by the 

Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals of 

1957. This treaty among Canada, Japan, the United States, and 

the Soviet Union prohibits pelagic sealing, provides for 

coordinated research programs, and arranges for a sharing of 

skins from seals harvested on land among party governments. 

Analyses on feeding habits were conducted by Canada, Japan, 

and the United States. While revealing a predominance of fish as 

opposed to squid in the fur seals' diets, these studies indicate 

that fur seals are opportunistic feeders. Those prey species 

which are most abundant are those which are most important in the 

fur seal diet. Although the Commission did not address the 

concept of optimum sustainable population, the United States 

impressed upon other member nations the importance of ecosystem 

management in dealing with the fur seal resource. 

In 1981, the Soviet union harvested 8,500 seals on the Robben 

and the Commander Islands. The United States had a commercial 

harvest of 23,892 male fur seals on St. Paul Island. 

US.JUSSR Marine FFbtmal Project, Ehvironrnental Protection Agreemnt 

The purpose of the project is to promote joint research and 

exchange of information by U.S. and Soviet scientists on the 

biology,. ecology, and population dynamics of marine mammals of 

interest to both countries. In October 1981, a project leaders 
consultation was held in Moscow, USSR, to review the previous 18 

months of joint work and to plan future research and exchange of 

scientists. 

The most comprehensive research cruise conducted to date 

under this project was carried out from February to April (1981) 

in the Bering Sea. The cruise included seven U.S. scientists and 

was divided into two parts; the first concentrated on walrus 

biology, and the second part focused on the study of ice-dwelling 

seals and northern sea lions. During the second part of the 

cruise, 255 marine mammals including northern sea lions, bearded 

seals, largha seals, ringed seals, ribbon seals, and walruses 

were collected primarily in the eastern Bering Sea and along the 

Soviet Coast. Measurements, tissue samples, and stomach contents 

were collected from these animals. 

In June, a U.S. scientist worked with Soviet colleagues on 

aerial survey methodology of small cetaceans at Black Sea 

research laboratories and participated in both aerial and vessel 

sighting surveys and compared the techniques practiced by the 

U.S.S.R in surveying Black Sea dolphins with U.S. survey 

techniques in the eastern tropical Pacific. Another U. S. 

scientist researched color pattern variations in cetaceans at the 

Institute of Developmental Biology in Moscow. 

Two Soviet scientists participated in joint studies on walrus 

at Round Island, Bristol Bay, Alaska, and participated in harbor 

seal-fishery interaction studies on the Columbia River. The 

latter studies included aerial surveys to estimate the population 

of harbor seals and resighting of radio tagged seals in the 

Columbia River estuary a.!d adjacent bays along the Washington 

coast. The Soviet scientists also studied os teological specimens 

at the California Academy of Sciences. 
Legal Act ions 

Friends of Animals, et al. v. Roe, et al., (October 1980); 

-- American Tunaboat Association (ATA), et al. - v. Klutznick, et al. 

(December 1980) 

Both actions challenge the Administrator's (NOAA) Final 

Decision in the 1980 tuna/porpoise rulemaking. In that decision, 

the Administrator published a 20,500 overall porpoise quota for 

each year for 1981 through 1985. 

In the first lawsuit, the District of Columbia District Court 

on July 31, 1981, issued a memorandum opinion and order approving 

the 1981-85 permit and regulations. The Court noted that 

particular deference must be given to the agency's decision on 

technical and scientific matters, and that it was supported by 

substantial evidence in the record. The court granted the 

government's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the law 

suit. 

Subsequently, the ATA pursued a similar lawsuit in the 

Southern District California Court challenging certain of the 

agency's findings in the rulemaking. Despite the agency's 

argument ,that another District Court had determined these 

findings (and the entire rulemaking decision) supported by 

substantial evidence in the record, the judge ordered the agency 

to make new calculations of the status of porpoise stocks based 

on certain findings the agency did not adopt. The outcome of 

these calculations and the agency' s motion for recommendation are 

pending. 

Balelo v. Klutznick (October 1980) 

This lawsuit brought by representatives of the U.S. fishing 

fleet in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of 

California challenged the statutory and consitutional authority 

for the government's use of informt tion gathered by observers on 

board tuna vessels for enforcement of the quotas and other 

provisions of the regulations. On July 27, 1981, the District 

Court ruled that in the absence of statutory authority, such use 

of observer-gathered information violated the Act and the Fourth 

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Court enjoined the 

government from using such information for civil or criminal 

penalty proceedings, forfeiture actions, permit or certificate 

sanctions, or any purpose except scientific research. On 

September 22, 1981, the Government appealed the District court's 

decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 
Friends of Animals vs. Baldrige (July 1981) 

The plaintiffs have challenged the permit issued to the 

Japanese salmon fishing cooperative to take 5,500 Dall's porpoise 

each year for 3 years. Briefs are being filed now before the 

U.S. ~istrict Court in the District of Columbia. 
Law Enf orcement 

The Act makes it illegal to take or import marine mammals or 

their parts or products, unless an exception has been made. The 

moratorium is enforced by NMFS special agents and state 

enforcement officers under contract to NMFS. During the past 

year, California was the only State with which NMFS renegotiated 

a contract. 

In the past year, most of the 385 alleged violations of the 

Act investigated by NMFS and State enforcement personnel involved 

the illegal importation of marine mammal parts and products. 

In February 1981, the Southwest Region's first criminal case 

brought to trial under the Act resulted in the suspect being 

found guilty of aiding and abetting in the shooting of a sea lion 

and sentenced to 16 days in the county jail and placed on 

probation for two years. The boat and weapons used in the 

shooting were forfeited. 

Also, two men pled guilty in North Carolina to killing an 

Atlantic bottlenose dolphin. Each received a 1-year suspended 

sentence and a suspended $2,000 fine. 

The Southeast Region reports that an increase in the number 

of diving, tour, and excursion boats in the Virgin Islands has 

resulted in increased human interest and interference with 

breeding humpback whales. The Region may seek increased 

resources to protect these whales while they are breeding and 

giving birth. 

Special Agents in the Northwest Region are working with the 

Department of Justice, NOAA General Counsel, and the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service in an extensive investigation of unlawful 

commercial activities involving sperm whale teeth and walrus 

tusks. This investigation has covered several states and 

includes dealers as well as craftsmen. 
Figure 4 - Grawth patterns on the rostrum of right whales are used to identi 

individual animals. Photograph taken in Lmer Bay of Fundy off 

Lubec, Maine by Scott Kraus, New England Aquarium, Boston, Mass, 
PART I11 - Management and Research Programs 

Bowhead Whale 

Manaaement 

Concern for the endangered bowhead whale led the 

~nternational Whaling Commission (IWC) to set a quota in 1977, 

for the first time, on the number that could be taken during the 

1978 subsistence hunt by Alaska natives. Although the MMPA 

allows a take of marine mammals by natives for subsistence, even 

if the species is threatened or endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act, the United States follows the IWC quota restrictions 

and implements these by regulations under the Whaling Convention 

Act of 1949. 

The IWC set an overall quota for 1981 through 1983 of 45 

bowhead whales landed or 65 struck, with no more than 17 to be 

landed in any one year. In March 1981, NOAA and the Alaska 

Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) concluded a cooperative 

agreement regarding management of bowhead whale subsistence 

hunting during 1981 and 1982. The agreement authorized a quota 

for 1981 of 17 whales landed or no more than 32 whales struck. 

Since 1978, NMFS has stationed enforcement agents in the 

principal Eskimo bowhead whaling villages to monitor the harvest 

of the traditional spring and fall hunt. 

The natives reached the 1981 quota during fall hunting at 

Kaktovik where 3 whales were struck and landed bringing the 

annual totals to 17 landed and 11 struck and lost. During the 

spring hunt, NMFS agents we re based in Gambell/Savoonga , Point 

Hope and Barrow, and during the fall, they were in Kaktovik and 

Barrow. 

Conservation efforts and cooperation by the Eskimo whaling 

leadership worked well under the cooperative agreement that 

allowed the Eskimo whaling community to regulate and manage its 

traditional subsistence hunting and resulted in compliance with 

commitments to IWC provisions. The AEWC amended its management 

plan in August 1981 to prohibit the use of the shoulder gun until 

a line and float have been secured to the whale which should 

minimize the possibility of whales being struck but lost. The 

AEWC also reviewed whaling practices employed by Eskimo whalers 

during 1981 and, as a result of its review, suspended the right 

of two harpooners to participate in bowhead whaling for a 1-year 

period. 

In February 1982, the NMFS Regional Director in Alaska 

negotiated an amendment to the 1981 cooperative Agreement 

concerning the management, inspection, and reporting of bowhead 

whale subsistence harvests. The cooperative agreement 
establishes a strike limit for 1982 of 19 whales and provides for 

civil penalties in the event more than 16 whales are landed. The 

agreement was also extended to apply to the 1983 hunt. 

Table 1 

Annual Quotas and Take of Bowhead Whales 1977-1982 

~uotal Actual Take 

Landed Strikes Landed Struck but lost Total Strikes 

1977 no quotas 29 

1978 14 20 12 

1979 18 27 12 

1980 18 2 6 16 

19812 17 32 17 

1982 16 19 

The State of Alaska, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, 

the oil and gas industry, NMFS, and the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) , have interests and responsibilities in protecting bowhead 

whales. The NMFS has lead-agency responsibility under both the 

Marine Mammal protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. 

While NMFS is responsible for carrying out biological studies of 

the bowhead whale population, BLM is responsible for developing 

information needed to assess and mitigate the possible adverse 

impacts of OCS activities on the bowhead and its habitat. 

Research 

NMFS1s bowhead whale research program is the responsibility 

of the National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML) in Seattle, Wash. 

The 1981 spring bowhead whale research was conducted April 11 

through June 2. The census, harvest, and biological collection 

elements of NMFS research were contracted to the Alaska Eskimo 

Whaling Commission who subcontracted to Arctic Technical Research 

of Fairbanks. 

The bowhead migration past Point Barrow, Alaska, beginning 

April 11 was the earliest migration we have witnessed since our 

studies began in 1974, Analyses of four years of data collected 

- 1/ A landed whale counts as a strike. A quota is filled when eithel 

the landed quota is reached or when the quota of total strikes is 

reached. 

- 2/ Totals for 1981, 1982, 1983 combined cannot exceed 45 landed or 

65 total struck. 
from 1978 to 1981 indicate that the best estimate of the 

population size lies within the level established in 1978 of 

1,783 to 2,865 animals, and is now believed to be within the 

upper half of that estimate. Census research is directed 

primarily at determining whether or not the abundance of the 

population is changing. Research on ageing, by using biochemical 

methods to study eye lens nuclei, continues on bowheads and on 

fin whales with the aim of developing a standard for large 

whales. Proteins from bowhead whale tissues examined by 

electrophoretic techniques indicate that the genetic variability 

in the bowhead population may be higher than expected when 

compared to other whales studied. Stomach and intestinal 

contents from whales landed in 1980 consisted primarily of 

euphausiids and copepods. Competition with arctic cod for prey 

may be important in some years. 

Aerial surveys were made from May 6 through May 21 near the 

ice-based census team at Point Barrow to determine the 

distribution of migrating whales across the lead. Up to 95 

percent of the whales passed with 3 miles of the edge of the 

shorefast ice. No bowheads were seen beyond 4.3 miles or in 

leads or open water beyond the nearshore lead west of Point 

Barrow. This is consistent with data collected since 1976. Icebased observers counted 14 calves. A higher proportion of calves 

were sighted nearer the edge of the shorefast ice. Calves make 

up about 3 percent of the bowhead whale population. 

Gray Whale 

Manaaement 

Although the population of the gray whale expanded to a point 

where the animal was removed from the IWC's "protected" status, 

the continued increase in its population may be adversely 

affected by such human activities as whale-watching and oil and 

gas development. This animal, which continues to be listed as 

endangered under the Endangered Species Act, migrates along the 

West Coast and winters in the lagoons of Baja California where it 

calves and breeds. 

Guidelines for gray whale watching were included in an 

educational brochure published by the Southwest Region, NMFS, in 

cooperation with the *Arne rican Cetacean Society. Under the MMPA, 

failure to observe the guidelines may be interpreted as 

harassment which is illegal. 

Research 

During the third year of a cooperative research program with 

the Mexican Department of Fisheries, the NMML made an extensive 

aerial census of gray whales throughout their main winter grounds 

along the west coast of Baja California. At the same time, a 
vessel census was made in one area (Bahia Sebastian Vizcaino) to 

compare the efficiency of aircraft and boat censuses. Studies in 

the calving lagoons were continued by personnel from the Mexican 

Department of Fisheries at Laguna Ojo de Liebre, Cetacean 

Research Associates, San Diego, at Laguna San Ignacio, and the 

University of California, Irvine, at Laguna Guerrero Negro. 

The NMML sponsored a shore census of migrating gray whales 

from February to June at Point Piedras Blancas, Calif., to 

establish the timing of the northward movement of cows with 

calves and to determine the proportion of calves in the 

population. Counts taken during the 1980-81 calving season were 

19 percent higher than those taken during the 1979-80 season. 

Humpback Whales 

Manaaement 

At varying times of the year, the humpback whale, which has 

been listed under the ESA as endangered throughout its range, 

inhabits waters off Alaska, Hawaii, and the east and west coasts. 

In the summer, a portion of the North Pacific stock spends 

time in Glacier Bay National Park and other areas in southeast 

Alaska. Most of the North Pacific population winters in the 

waters around the main islands of Hawaii. Activities in both 

areas present threats to this species; these activities include 

commercial and recreational vessel traffic, of fshore oil and gas 

development, sport and commercial fisheries, and coastal 

development. 

In the past, 20 to 25 whales were observed each year in 

Glacier Bay, Alaska; however, the number of whales and the length 

of time spent in the Bay dropped in 1978 and 1979. The National 

Park Service determined that increasing vessel traffic might have 

been partially responsible for this situation and established 

emergency regulations to restrict vessel traffic. In 1981, 

Congress appropriated special funds to the National Park Service 

to address the problem and the National Park Sevice transferred 

the funds to NMFS to carry out the studies. 

In Hawaii, the concerns for the species are related to whalewatching activities; the effects of operating an inter-island 

hydrofoil service through certain humpback whale habitats ; 

criteria for determining activities which constitute harassment; 

and the need to educate boat and aircraft operators about 

humpback whales. 
Figure 5 - Whale watching off the Gulf of Maine. Photograph by Scott Krauss, 

New England Aquarium, Boston, Mass. 
Research 

Studies were made in Glacier Bay, Southeast Alaska, and 

nearby waters to determine why fewer whales now use Glacier Bay 

as a summer feeding ground. The most likely reasons for the 

change in distribution are (1) increasing boat traffic in the 

Bay, perhaps in combination with unusual acoustic characteristics 

of the Bay itself, or (2) a change in food supply. With funding 

from the National Park Service and a contribution from the Alaska 

cruise ship industry, the NMML contracted for three studies: (1) 

comparison of acoustic characteristics of Glacier Bay with nearby 

areas where whales feed; (2) study of the effects of vessels on 

whale behavior; and (3) assessment of available food stocks 

inside and outside the Bay. 

Preliminary results of the acoustics study indicate that 

although intermittent seismic activity of glacial origin is 

present and physical oceanographic conditions associated with 

sound channeling were measured inside the Bay, it is not very 

different acoustically from nearby areas. The behavior data 

obtained by the study team clearly demonstrated that whales 

avoided nearby vessels of various types and sizes. Effects of 

vessels more than half a mile away were less clear. Observed 

feeding behavior in and out of the Bay was of a predominantly 

subsurf ace type, in contrast to extensive surf ace feeding 

reported in recent years. The prey study indicates herring, 

pollack and euphausiids were plentiful both in and out of Glacier 

Bay in 1981 and that generation and maturation of these and other 

species occur later in the Bay than outside. Prey and behavior 

study analyses are continuing with a second season of field 

research planned in 1982. 

Since humpback whales can be identified by their flukes, the 

NMML is using photographs to identify individual eastern North 

Pacific humpback whales. There are 272 whales catalogued in the 

system and photographs of about 100 more are waiting to be added. 

The eastern North Pacific population is currently estimated at 

about 1,000 whales. There are over 60 matches within areas over 

time, e.g. one animal identified each year in southeastern Alaska 

from 1977 to 1980 by four different contributors. Also, four 

long distance matches have been made: Mexico 1978/Prince William 

Sound, Alaska 1979; Hawaii 1975/Prince William Sound 1978; Hawaii 

1978/S.E. Alaska 1979; and S. E. Alaska 1978/Mexico 1980. 

North Atlantic Cetaceans 

Management 

The NMFS Northeast Region has been reviewing data on the 

abundance and distribution of the large endangered whale species 

off the U.S. East Coast from Cape Hatteras to the U.S. - Canadian 

border. Most of the data came from the first year's (1979) 
survey effort of the Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program 

(CETAP) conducted by the University of Rhode Island under 

contract from the Bureau of Land Management. The three-year 

CETAP surveys were concluded at the end of 1981, and final 

analysis of the CETAP data should be available later this year. 

NMFS has used the 1979 CETAP Annual Report, along with data 

from research funded by the NMFS, to assess the potential impacts 

of oil and gas leasing exploration activities on the Mid and 

North Atlantic outer continental shelf (OCS) under the 

consultation and review provisions of the Endangered Species Act 

and National Environmental Policy Act. The 1979 CETAP data, 

although recognized as preliminary and largely unanalyzed, does 

suggest some significant behavior patterns among cetaceans in the 

Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank areas. 

The data show heavy use of the inshore banks along the 

southern edge of the Gulf of Maine (Jeffrey's Ledge, Stellwagen 

Bank, and Provincetown Slope) by humpback and fin whales from 

spring until fall. The data also suggest that the Great South 

Channel, a bathymetric feature resembling a funnel and located 

between Georges Bank and Cape Cod, is used by many large 

cetaceans as they migrate to and from the Gulf of Maine. Based 

on the CETAP data, there are significant concentrations of 

Odonotocetes (sperm whales, pilot whales, bottlenose dolphin and 

various pelagic dolphins) along the 1,000 meter contour from Cape 

Hatteras north to the southern margin of Georges Bank. 

The New England Aquarium (NEA) has, under contract to the 

NMFS and the World Wildlife Fund, described the repeated usage of 

the lower Bay of Fundy (near Grand Manan Island) by the severely 

depleted North Atlantic right whale. For two successive years, 

the NEA surveys have revealed several cow/calf pairs using this 

region from July through September. Right whale mating behavior 

has also been consistently observed in the lower Bay of Fundy. 

Research 

The CETAP surveys represent the first major effort to gather 

information on all cetaceans found on the Northeast Region's 

continental shelf. The final report of the three-year program 

will serve as a baseline characterization of cetacean 

distribution, abundance, and movement patterns ir, the western 

North Atlantic. 

The NMFS has used East Coast marine mammal research funds to 

fill in the research needs in the Northeast Region not covered by 

CETAP. These funds have covered the following: 

o A humpback whale workshop to describe the status of the 

species its movement patterns, habitat usage, and the humanrelated pressures on the population. ~ecommendations were 

made for further research on the species. 
o A pilot study to determine the most feasible survey technique 

for harbor porpoise. 

o Publication, maintenance, and improvement of a Humpback Whale 

Fluke Identification Catalog. 

o Large whale distribution and abundance survey in the lower 

Bay of Fundy with emphasis in 1981 on the North Atlantic 

right whale. 

o Studies on the behavior of humpback whales and their use of 

the Cape Cod Bay/Stellwagen Bank area and the Mona Passage, 

Puerto Rico. 

The Northeast Fisheries Center has formed a steering 

committee to coordinate all of the humpback whale research which 

is occuring in the Northwest Atlantic. 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

Management 

The popularity of the bottlenose dolphin, especially for 

public display, prompted the Marine Mamma1 Commission to 

recommend an annual quota for the number of animals authorized to 

be removed from populations in the Southeast Region for 

scientific research and public display. The number removed 

during any calendar year cannot exceed two percent of the minimum 

population in a specific location. 

The Southeast Region regulates the taking under permits; all 

permit holders authorized to take dolphins from the region are 

required to consult with the Regional Director about specific 

locations of take. At this time, taking is authorized only from 

the areas where quotas have been set and only until these quotas 

are reached. 

Annual Quotas 

Mississippi Sound - 35 

Indian/Banana River Complex (Florida ) - 7 

Texas Coast - Corpus Cristi/Matagordo Bay - 17 

West Coast of Florida (between Crystal River and 

Charlotte Harbor) - 6 
Research 

The Southeast Fisheries Center, through its Miami and 

Mississippi Laboratories, has continued to assess the population 

of the bottlenose dolphin. The three elements of the program 

include surveys of the population, analysis of the survey data, 

and estimation of population levels for priority inshore areas; 

evaluation of local herd composition and movements in the 

Indian/Banana River Complex to determine discrete local 

populations and intermixing in the inshore coastal waters; and 

continuation of the Marine Mammal Stranding and Salvage Network 

in conjunction with the Sea Turtle Network. 

Tentative discrete area estimates are being made of the 

following near shore areas where aerial surveys have been 

completed; the Indian-Banana River complex, Florida east coast; 

Charlotte Harbor, Florida east coast; Tampa Bay, Florida west 

coast ; St. Joseph-Apalach icola Bays complex, Florida panhandle ; 

Mississippi Sound, Mississippi; and the Arkansas-Copano-San 

Antonio Bays complex, Texas. Aerial surveys continue year round 

and seasonal population estimates are made for each area. Except 

for Mississippi Sound and the Indian-Banana River Complex, 

abundance estimates were higher in the winter. 

Also, a preliminary investigation of when this species calves 

has been completed using these aerial survey data. In all areas 

except the Indian-Banana Rivers, there appears to be an increase 

in the numbers of calves sighted during spring and summer 

surveys. Although the actual peak calving month is not known, 

results suggest a spring-summer calving season. No distinct 

calving season was discernible for the Indian-Banana River 

complex. 

The cryogenic marking method ( freeze branding) was selected 

for the local herd biodynamics study, and these identifying marks 

were readable after 14 months. Of the 88 marked dolphins, all 

were observed twice, and marked dolphins were present in the 

Indian/Banana River Complex throughout the year. A total of 

5,886 sightings occurred with 5,216 adult sightings and 620 

calves. The average herd size for the study site was 5.17 

animals over the eleven month period. Measurement data was 

collected on each animal marked. 

Also, the Southwest Fisheries Center's La Jolla Laboratory 

has initiated population studies of the southern California 

coastal bottlenose dolphin. The studies are aimed at discerning 

the bottlenose population's size, movements, range, herd 

composition, and reproductive rate. Boat surveys and land-based 

surveys have been made; aerial surveys and acoustic monitoring 

will also be used during the research. Preliminary work 

indicates that some dolphins may be permanent residents of 

certain areas along the San Diego County coast. There appears to 

be a seasonal fluctuation in numbers of dolphins and herd size 
with the greatest numbers occurring in July and November and the 

largest herds in February and July. 

Dall's Porpoise 

Management 

Under a permit issued by NMFS, the Japanese salmon mothership 

fishery is permitted to take 5,500 Dall's porpoise annually 

inside the U.S. fishery conservation zone (FCZ). The reported 

total take in 1981 was 1,136. Marine mammals, primarily the 

Dallls porpoise, are taken during commercial gillnet operations 

by Japanese fishing vessels, both in and out of the U.S. fishery 

conservation zone, in the North pacific and Bering Sea. A 3-year 

exemption from the incidental take permit requirements of the 

MMPA granted to the Japanese salmon fishery in the North pacific 

Ocean and implemented by 1978 amendments to the North pacific 

Fisheries Act of 1954, expired in June 1981. Before issuing the 

genera1 permit in June 1981, NMFS published a draft and final 

environmental impact statement, Incidental Take of Dall 's 

Porpoise in the Japanese Salmon Fishery. The EIS examined the 

impacts of the following alternatives: 1 allow the Japanese 

fishery to continue to -take marine mammals within waters - under 

U.S. jurisdiction (proposed and final action), through either (a) 

granting an incidental take permit. under the MMPA, or (b) 

recommending legislative act ion to extend the permit exemption; 

and (2) not allow this incidental take to continue, thereby 

ending the Japanese salmon fishery within the U.S. FCZ, by taking 

no action before June 1981. 

In 1981, a program was implemented to monitor the incidental 

take by the Japanese. U.S. observers were aboard catcherboats 

while the mothership fleets operated inside the U.S. FCZ and 

observers from the Japan Fisheries Agency were aboard 

catcherboats both inside and outside the U.S. FCZ. Observers 

collected data on the dropout rate of salmon during gillnet 

operations and on seabird entanglements. A cooperative research 

program with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on seabird 

incidental take is being planned for 1982. 

Research 

The U.S.-Japan cooperative research program initiated in 1978 

continued under the new 3-year U.S.-Japan MOU and MMPA permit. 

During censusing surveys made by U.S. biologists and Japanese 

nationals on Japanese salmon research vessels, Dall's porpoise 

was the' most frequently sighted and most abundant species. 

Inside the FCB, a U.S. biologist was on board each of the 

Japanese salmon motherships to collect biological samples and 

data from all incidentally taken marine mammals returned to the 

motherships. Japanese nationals collected samples from porpoises 

taken north of the U.S. FCZ. Data were also obtained on the 

distribution of the salmon catcherboats in relation to incidental 

take of marine mammals. 

The Japan Fisheries Agency chartered a vessel dedicated to 

Dall Is porpoise research. The vessel was used to compare 

incidental take rates inside and outside the U.S. FCZ, to compare 

rates when the vessel operated alone and when it operated as part 

of the commercial fleet, and to assess annual variation in the 

rates by comparing incidental take rates with 1981 observations. 

The incidental take on board the dedicated vessel was 

substantially lower in 1981 (0.11 porpoise per set in 18 gillnet 

sets) than in 1980 (2.6 porpoise per set in 10 sets). 

Examination of environmental data shows slight differences in 

conditions in the two years with surface water temperature and 

Beaufort state ranges being slightly higher and lower, 

respectively in 1981. Although conditions for sighting marine 

mammals were more favorable in 1981, there were fewer Dall's 

porpoise sighted during set operations (one sighting during 14 

sets in 1981 compared to 9 sightings in 14 set operations in 

1980). 

Porpoise* and Purse Seine Fishing for Yellowf in Tuna 

Management 

NMFS Issued a general permit to the American Tunaboat 

Association (ATA) in December 1980 that allowed an annual take of 

20,500 porpoises each year from 1981 through 1985. In the 1981 

fishing season, about 19,000 animals were killed during purse 

seine fishing for yellowf in tuna by the U.S. fleet in the eastern 

tropical pacific Ocean. 

The regulations that established the yearly quota also set 

individual allowable mortality limits for the various porpoise 

stocks. The U.S. tuna fishing industry questioned the individual 

stock quotas and petitioned NMFS to modify the quotas in order to 

allow fishermen to tailor their fishing strategies to the 

variations in the availability and location of yellowf in tuna. 

Amendments to modify the quotas were proposed by NMFS on January 

1, 1981 and final modified quotas were published in the August 

1981 Federal Register. NMFS was asked also by the industry to 

reconsider a ban on "sundownI1 sets which in the past have 

resulted in high porpoise mortality. NMFS is reconsidering the 

regulatory ban on sundown sets. 

The Southwest Regional Off ice manages the NMFS tuna/porpoise 

* NMFS uses the term porpoise, rather than dolphin, to prevent 

confusion with the dolphin fish, an object of sport and commercial 

fishing. The common name is used when discussing individual 

species or stocks, such as eastern spinner dolphin. 
program; this involves responsibility for training observers, 

inspecting vessels, and generally educating the industry about 

porpoise saving techniques. 

NMFS inspected the porpoise safety gear on 86 vessels in the 

ports of San Diego, Calif. and Panama City Panama to make sure 

the vessels were complying with U, S. marine mammal regulations. 

Further, tuna seiner operator workshops were held for 60 

skippers. A total of 165 vessel operators hold Certificates of 

Inclusion under the ATA general permit. 

Both the U.S. government and the IATTC sponsor observers on 

tuna vessels. In 1981, observers completed 91 trips aboard U.S. 

flag tuna vessels. Of these, 54 were cooperative cruises with 

the IATTC with the remainder sponsored by NMFS. 

Table 2 Total incidental porpoise mortality and serious injury 

for U.S. and Non-U.S. vessels, 1971-1981 

Ye a r U.S. Vessels Non U.S. Vessels Total 

Transfers of Purse Seine Vessels 

Since 1977, about twenty-five purse seine vessels have 

transferred from U.S. flag and registry to foreign flag. Most of 

these transfers were to nations fishing in the eastern tropical 

Pacific Ocean (ETP). As a result of the recent re-registry of 11 

U.S. built, Mexican and Cayman Island purse seine vessels to U.S. 

flag, only fourteen vessels remain under foreign flag; six of 

these do not fish in the ETP. During this time, about 17 vessels 

were built in U.S. shipyards for foreign owners. These vessels 

can transfer without conditions. 

On February 10, 1982, the NMFS recommended removing all 

conditions imposed on the transfer of documented ( i.e. used) U.S. 

purse seine vessels to foreign flag. Conditions on transfers had 

been imposed in 1977 when there was concern that the promulgation 

of porpoise protection regulations would cause U.S. tuna boat 

owners to transfer to foreign flag to avoid these regulations. 
Since that concern no longer exists, and since most of the purse 

seining nations have been determined to be fishing in substantial 

compliance with U.S. porpoise protection regulations, this policy 

is no longer necessary. 

Foreign Nations Involved in Purse Seining for Yellowfin Tuna. The 

Act provides for the prohibition of fish and fish products caught 

with-commercial fishing technology which results in an incidental 

kill or serious injury of marine mammals in excess of U.S. 

standards. U.S. regulations provide that the importation of 

yellowf in tuna and tuna products from nations known to be 

involved in the tuna purse seine fishery in the eastern tropical 

Pacific Ocean is contingent upon certain findings by the 

Assistant ~dministrator for Fisheries. One of these requirements 

is for a responsible government official to certify that tuna 

purse seine vessels under their flag are fishing with porpoise 

rescue gear installed in their nets similar to that required of 

U.S. purse seine fishermen. In 1981, the NMFS determined that 

Bermuda , Canada, the Cayman Islands, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El 

Salvador, Korea, Netherlands Antilles, New Zealand, Panama, and 

Venezuela were all fishing in substantial conformance with U.S. 

regulations. Mexico and Peru remain under an MMPA tuna 

importation prohibition while the prohibition against the Congo 

and Senegal imposed in 1980 was rescinded because neither nation 

was fishing for yellowfin tuna in the ETP. 

Research 

The Southwest Fisheries Center continued to assess the 

population size and biology of dolphins involved in the U.S. tuna 

purse-seine fishery. Three new approaches to improve stock 

assessment were tested. One of the approaches involved precision 

aerial photographs taken on a survey in 1980 and analyzed by 

scientists of the Center and the IATTC to obtain dolphin length 

measurements. Preliminary results suggest that the technique has 

adequate precision for use in estimating the annual production of 

calves. The photographs can also be used to estimate school 

size. Comparison of counts of dolphins in the photographs with 

visual school size estimates suggest that visual estimates may 

slightly underestimate the size of large schools. 

The second technique was the successful use of satellitelinked transmitters to track two dolphins off ~awaii. The 

experiment proved that a small telemetry system could be used for 

tracking dolphin movements with a satellite and that the 

technique would be useful in studying dolphin seasonal 

migrations, stock boundaries, and school integrity. 

The third technique involved the examination of the detailed 

structures in the teeth from a large sample of of fshore spotted 

dolphins killed in the purse seine fishery. Information on the 

age composition of the kill can be used by scientists to 

extrapolate information on the health of the dolphin stocks such 

as their reproductive capacity. This new technique was developed 
using teeth from captive Hawaiian spinner dolphins whose ages 

were known and whose tooth layers were marked from periodic 

dosages of tetraycline. The layers in the teeth were found to 

correspond to time periods. 

A 2-month aerial survey was made near Costa Rica to study the 

effects of environmental conditions on aerial sightings which are 

used to estimate the density of dolphin schools. Repeated 

flights were made in the same area under different weather and 

sea states to determine if these conditions affect the observer's 

ability to see the schools. 

The Center co-sponsored an international conference and 

workshop on "Cetacean Reproduction: Estimating Parameters for 

Stock Assessment and Management. " The con£ erence reviewed the 

behavior, functional morphology, and physiology of cetacean 

reproduction as well as addressed problems and new approaches in 

methodology. The workshop cove red collect ion, preparation, 

interpretation, and use of biological data in stock assessment 

and management. The con£ erence provided additional in£ ormation 

for the continuing Center research program on the life history of 

small cetaceans. 
Platforms of Opportunity Program 

Since 1971, the Northwest Fisheries Center has been 

collecting marine mammal sigh tings from a number of sources under 

the auspices of the Platforms of Opportunity Program (POP). 

These sightings are made by members of NOAA and Coast Guard 

vessels, U.S. Forest Service naturalists aboard Alaska State 

ferries, private fishing vessels, U.S. observers aboard foreign 

fishing vessels, and numerous other biologists and boaters. 

NOAA's Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program 

(OCSEAP) contracted the National Marine Mammal Laboratory to 

analyze backlogged 1978-1980 POP sigh tings in an attempt to 

further describe the distribution of marine mammals in the Gulf 

of Alaska. Using computer plots of these data and historical 

information, distributional limits for all species found in the 

Gulf of Alaska have been determined. Recent in-house use of POP 

data include the determination of a suitable research location 

for gray whale feeding studies in the northern Bering Sea and the 

determination of the extent of Dall's porpoise distribution in 

the North Pacific. The BLM will use the data for both draft and 

final environmertal impact statements in determining which marine 

mammals species are likely to occur in or near oil lease sites in 

the Gulf of Alaska. 

The Northeast Fisheries Center funds a similar program using 

observers on NOAA vessels and by contracting to private groups 

such as the Cetacean Research Unit. Marine Mammals are observed 

from Maine to the Hatteras area of North Carolina. 

Pinniped Programs 

Channel Islands National Park, California 

Manaaement 

The legislation which established the Channel Islands 

National Park instructed the Departments of Interior and Commerce 

to cooperate in the development of a Natural Resources Study and 

in the Park planning processes which pertain to marine mammals. 

Therefore, the Southwest Region and the Southwest Fisheries 

Center are' developing management and research plans for pinniped 

populations in the Park in consultation with the National Park 

Service, the State of California, and the Office of Coastal Zone 

Management (NOAA) . The Act mandates a minimum 10-year 

cooperative effort. A report on the status of the pinniped 

population in the Park, including a discussion of population 

dynamics, management concerns, and in£ ormation needs, was 

submitted to the National Park Service to be a part of its first 

report to Congress on the status of the natural resources in the 

Pa rk. 

Research 

The population biology and ecology of coastal marine mammal 

stocks of California are being investigated by the Southwest 

Fisheries Center with research efforts directed at California sea 

lions and harbor seals. Mark and recapture experiments on sea 

lions were conducted on the California Channel Islands to assess 

pup production and survival, age of a female's first pregnancy, 

and the an.imals1 fidelity to their pupping areas. Data on pup 

reproduction is being used to assess the status of the 

populations. 

Other studies contracted by the Southwest Fisheries Center 

include radio tracking of harbor seals on San Nicolas Island and 

the feasability of using photogrametric techniques for assessing 

pup production of the pinniped population in California. 

The National Marine Mammal Laboratory cooperated with the 

Southwest Center's coastal marine mammal program and the Channel 

Islands National Park by providing pinniped census information 

from San Miguel Island for an overall assessment of pinnipeds in 

the Channel Islands. The studies at San Miguel Island included 

northern elephant seal pup production counts, northern fur seal 

population biology, corhpetition for space between California se'a 

lions and northern fur seals, and competition for food resources 

among the four most abundant pinniped species (northern fur 

seals, California sea lions, northern elephant seals and harbors 

seals). The northern elephant seal population continues to grow 

at an annual rate in excess of 10 percent with about 7,200 pups 

born during the 1980-81 winter pupping season. The northern fur 
seal colony in Adams Cove continues to increase with 941 pups 

born in 1981, a 5 percent increase over 1980. During a period of 

unusually warm weather, large numbers of newborn pups died of 

heat prostration which increased pup mortality to above 30 

percent in Adams Cove. Northern fur seal pup production on 

Castle Rock has fluctuated between 500 to 600 each year since 

1976. The apparent lack of significant change over the last six 

years suggests that the colony is at carrying capacity with 

competition for rookery space the limiting factor. 

Studies of allocation for food resources among the four 

abundant seal species were begun in 1980; over 5,100 otoliths 

representing 18 fish species and 640 cephalopod beaks 

representing at least 3 squid and 1 octopus species have been 

identified from scat from the four species. Time-depth recorders 

attached to northern fur seals provided three diving records 

which will be useful in intepreting food habits. 

Hawaiian Monk Seal 

Manaaement 

NMFS has lead-agency responsibility for the Hawaiian monk 

seal under the authority of both the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

and the Endangered Species Act. Because the species' range 

includes the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service shares responsibility for protecting 

the monk seal and its habitat on the refuge. 

In 1976, the Marine Mammal Commission recommended that a 

portion of the Hawaiian monk seal's range be considered for 

designation as critical habitat under criteria set by the 

Endangered Species Act. NMFS issued a draft environmental 

statement in 1980; however, a final decision has been deferred 

until the Hawaiian monk seal recovery plan is completed. A draft 

recovery plan has been circulated within NMFS and a final plan 

will be submitted by May 1982 with implementation expected by 

August 1982. 

NMFS reviewed and submitted a biological opinion on the 

" Combined Fishery Management Plan, Environmental Impact Statement 

and Regulatory Analysis for the Spiny Lobster Fisheries of the 

Western Pacific Region." The plan, prepared by the Western 

Pacific Fishery Management Council, indicated that except for the 

stock off shore Necker Island, the spiny lobster stocks off shore 

the Northwestern Hawaiian Island essentially are in a virgin 

state; there is considerable interest in developing the spiny 

lobster fishery, and there has been a substantial increase in 

fishing capacity so that over-fishing is a real possibility; and 

the Hawaiian monk seal and other endangered species could be 

affected adversely by entanglement in fishing gear, disturbance 

by fishing operations, or depletion of food resources. This 
problem has been addressed in the recovery plan which is designed 

to protect and encourage the recovery of the species. 

Research 

A long-term cooperative study of Hawaiian monk seal biology 

was started in 1976 by biologists at the Northwest and Alaska 

Fisheries Center, the National Bird and Mammal Laboratory, U. S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, and contract researchers of the Marine 

Mammal Commission. From 1977 to 1980, surveys were made of the 

status and trends of the population, and a population and 

behavioral study was made at Laysan Island, a small northern 

island of the Hawaiian archipelago. Recent censuses indicate 

most island populations have decreased 50 percent on the average, 

since the late 1950's. Monk seal populations at Kure Atoll, 

Midway Islands, and Pearl and Hermes Reef declined 70 to 90 

percent; Lisianski and Laysan Island populations declined 50 to 

60 percent while monk seal populations at French Frigate Shoals 

and Necker Island increased. 

Currently, the Honolulu Laboratory of the Southwest Fisheries 

Center directs monk seal research for NMFS. An analysis of the 

four years of data collected on Laysan Island continues. About 

50 percent of almost 5,000 dives recorded on six adult male monk 

seals at Lisianski Island were deeper than 20 fathoms, with 

maximum dives at 60 fathoms. During the summer 1981, five female 

pups were successfully maintained in captivity at Kure Atoll. 

The purpose of this project was to determine the cause of pup 

disappearance at, Kure Atoll and to enhance pup survival. It will 

be repeated at Kure in 1982, and an experimental weaned-pup 

tagging project will be performed at Lisianski Island to evaluate 

the effects of tagging. Aerial survey techniques are being 

tested as a means of monitoring the monk seal population. 

Northern Fur Seal 

Management 

The U.S. government employs Aleut residents to harvest male 

fur seals on the Pribilof Islands in Alaska. The fur seal is 

polgynous with one harem bull to an average of 40 female seals. 

The surplus males in excess of the reproductive needs of the 

population are harvested when they are between the ages of 2 and 

6 years. These sub-adult males haul out in groups away from the 

females, pups, and harem bulls in the breeding areas. This 

separation makes it possible to herd only bachelor males inland 

for harvesting without disturbing the rookeries. The number of 

seals harvested each year is regulated by establishing size and 

season limits. In 1981, a total of 23,892 male fur seals, 

primarily 3 and 4 year olds, were harvested during the 24-day 

season on St. Paul Island from June 29 to July 31. 
The moratorium on commercial harvest on St. George Island 

that began in 1973 continued into its ninth year although a 

subsistence harvest has taken place in recent years; 350 seals 

were taken for local consumption in July and August. 

Research 

Biological information collected by the NMML on fur seals of 

the Pribilof Islands of St. Paul and St. George in 1981 included 

determining the age of fur seals harvested, the number of adult 

males on the rookeries and hauling grounds, and the number of 

pups and seals older than pups that died on the rookeries and 

adjacent beaches. The number of pups born on St. Paul and St. 

George Islands in 1981 was also estimated. This work was reported 

in a NWAFC Processed Report, Fur Seal Investigations, 1981. 

A major effort was made to repeat baseline data on behavior 

collected at St. George Island in 1974 immediately after the end 

of harvesting. Also, the size of the herds was monitored. Final 

data were obtained on the diving behavior of female fur seals, 

and a final experiment on estrus was completed. Radioactive 

tracers were used to study the energy related to obtaining food, 

the production of milk, and growth rate of young seals. ~eGborns 

were tagged to provide known-age subjects for future studies. 

A fur seal dietary report was completed based on the 

prinicipal prey species of fur seals (as determined from percent 

of stomach content volume) and the relative abundance of the 

f ish-squid resources of California and in the eastern Bering Sea. 

Although this report focused primarily on California and the 

eastern Bering Sea, the prinicpal prey species for the other 

areas were identified and discussed. The basic conclusion was 

that opportunistic feeding by fur seals on the most abundant 

available species prevailed throughout the fur seal Is range in 

the eastern pacific Ocean and the eastern Bering Sea. 

North Atlantic Pinnipeds 

Research 

NMFS has funded a continuing study by the University of Maine 

on the abundance, distribution, and habitat use patterns of the 

harbor seal in the Gulf of Maine. This comprehensive tagging and 

aerial census effort will provide valuable baseline data 

concerning the species. 

NMFS also funded two harbor seal and grey seal studies in 

Manomet and Nantucket, Mass. , to better understand the long-term 

use of these areas that lie on the fringe of these species1 

normal year-round range. 

A contract has been awarded to investigate the use of seal flipper 

radiography (X-ray) in determining age by bone growth. 
Figure 8 - Bearded seal in the Bering Sea off Alaska. Photograph by 

L. Consiglieri, NMFS. 
Appendix A 

TABLE 1 - 1981 GENERAL PERMITS - COMMERCIAL FISHING INCIDENTAL TAKE l' 

PINNIPEDIA CETACEA TOTAL 

Otariidae Phocidae 

Applied Applied Applied Applied 

for Allowed for Allowed for Allowed for Allowed 

Category 1: Domestic (PCFFA) 350 

Towed or Japan (Deep Sea) 20 

Dragged Japan (~edium)z. 0 

Gear Poland (GRYF) 2 4 

Poland (ODBA) 4 0 

Poland (DALMOR) 4 8 

Domestic (chipman) 3. 8 

Spain (ANAVBX) 2 0 

West Germany - 6 0 

Sub total 570 

Category 3: Domestic (PCFFA) 3 00 300 400 400 40 40 7 40 740 

Encircling Domestir (chipaan) 3. 8 0 10 0 0 0 18 0 

Gear, Not 

Involving 

Intentional 

Taking - - - - - - - - 

Subtotal 308 308 410 400 4 0 4 0 758 740 

Category 4: Domestic (PCFFA) 4 0 40 5 0 5 0 0 0 90 9 0 

Stationary Domestic (chdpman) ' 7 0 10 0 0 0 17 0 

Gear - - - - - - - - 

Subtotal 4 7 4 0 60 5 0 0 0 107 9 0 

Category 5: Domestic (PCFFA) 450 450 6 00 600 4 0 4 0 1,090 1,090 

Other Gear Japan (~ongline) 2. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Domestic (chipman)3' - 7 0 10 0 - 0 - 0 l7 - 0 

Subtotal 45 7 450 6 10 600 4 0 40 1,107 1,090 

I. Except Category 2: Encircling Gear, Involving the Intentional Taking of Marine Mammals 

2. Requested harassment only, no mortality or serious injury intended 

3. Application denied, combined with PCFFA permit 
TABLE 2 -1982 GENEKAL PERMIT - COMMERCIAL FISHING INCIDENTAL TAKE 

PINNIPEDIA 

Otariidae Phocidae 

CETACEA TOTAL 

Applied Applied Applied Applied 

for Allowed for Allowed for Allowed for Allowed 

Category 1: 

Towed or 

Dragged Gear 

Subtotal 

DOMESTIC (PCFFA) 

JAPAN (Deep Sea) 

JAPAN (Medium) 

POLAND (GRYF) * 

POLAND (ODRA) * 

POLAND (Dalmor) * 

SPAIN (ANAVAR) 

WEST GERMANY 

BULGARIA 

REPUBLIC OF 

KOREA 

cn 

W 

Category 3: DOMESTIC (PCPFA) 300 300 4 00 400 4 0 40 74 0 74 0 

Encircling Gear, 

Not Involving 

Intentional 

Taking 

Subtotal 

Category 4: DOMESTIC (PCFFA) 4 0 40 50 50 0 

Stationary 

Gear - - - - - 

Subtotal 40 40 5 0 50 0 I) 90 90 

Category 5: DOMESTIC (PCFFA) 450 450 600 600 40 40 1,090 1,090 

Other Gear JAPAN (longline) 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 

Subtotal 

* General ?emits not issued on account of failure to secure. 1982 fishing permit. 
TABLE 3 

COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF MARINE MAMMALS INVOLVED IN 

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH/PUBLIC DISPLAY PERMIT APPLICATIONS 

COMMON NAME 

----------- 

CETACEANS 

--------- 

SCIENTIFIC NAME 

--------------- 

ATLANTIC BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN 

ATLANTIC SPOTTED DOLPHIN 

ATLANTIC WHITE-SIDED DOLPHIN 

BAIRD' S BEAKED WHALE 

BLACK RIGHT WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT 

BLAINVILLE'S BEAKED WHALE 

BLUE WHALE 

BOTTLENOSE DOLPHINS 

BOTTLENOSE WHALES 

BOWHEAD WHALE 

BRY DE ' S WHALE 

COMMERSON'S DOLPHIN 

COMMON DOLPHIN 

CUVIER'S BEAKED WHALE 

DALL'S PORPOISE 

DUSKY DOLPHIN 

DWARF SPERM WHALE 

FALSE KILLER WHALE 

FIN WHALE, FINBACK 

FINLESS PORPOISE 

FRASER'S (SARAWAK) DOLPHIN 

GINKGO-TOOTHED BEAKED WHALE 

GRAY WHALE 

GRAY'S BEAKED WHALE 

HARBOR PORPOISE 

HEAVISIDE'S DOLPHIN 

HUBBS' BEAKED WHALE 

HUMPBACK WHALE 

KILLER WHALE 

LAGENORHYNCHINE DOLPHINS 

LONG-FINNED PILOT WHALE 

MELON-HEADED WHALE, ELECTRA 

MINKE WHALE 

NORTHERN BOTTLENOSE WHALE 

NORTHERN RIGHT WHALE DOLPHIN 

PACIFIC WHITE-SIDED DOLPHIN 

PILOT WHALES UNSPECIFIED 

PYGMY KILLER WHALE 

PYGMY RIGHT WHALE 

PYGMY SPERM WHALE 

RIGHT WHALES UNSPECIFIED 

RISSO'S DOLPHIN, GRAMPUS 

ROUGH-TOOTHED DOLPHIN 

SEI WHALE 

SHORT-FINNED PILOT WHALE 

5 4 

TURSIOPS TRUNCATUS 

STENELLA PLAGIODON 

LAGENORHYNCHUS ACUTUS 

BERARDIUS BAIRDII 

BALAENA GLACIAL1 S 

MESOPLODON DENSIROSTRIS 

BALAENOPTERA MUSCULUS 

TURSIOPS SP. 

HYPEROODON SP. 

BALAENA MYSTICETUS 

BALAENOPTERA EDEN1 

CEPHALORHYNCHUS COMMERSONII 

DELPHINUS DELPHIS 

Z IPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS 

PHOCOENOIDES DALLI 

LAGENORHYNCHUS OBSCURUS 

KOGIA SIMUS 

PSEUDORCA CRASSIDENS 

BALAENOPTERA PHYSALUS 

NEOPHOCAENA PHOCAENOIDES 

LAGENODELPHIS HOSE1 

MESOPLODON GINKGODENS 

ESCHRICHTIUS ROBUSTUS 

MESOPLODON GRAY1 

PHOCOENA PHOCOENA 

CEPHALORHYNCHUS HEAVISIDII 

MESOPLODON CARLHUBBSI 

MEGAPTERA NOVAEANGLIAE 

ORCINUS ORCA 

LAGENORHYNCHUS SP. 

GLOBICEPHALA MELAENA 

PEPONOCEPHALA ELECTRA 

BALAENOPTERA ACUTOROSTRATA 

HYPEROODON AMPULLATUS 

LISSODELPHIS BOREALIS 

LAGENORHYNCHUS OBLIQUIDENS 

GLOBICEPHALA SP. 

FERESA ATTENUATA 

CAPEREA MARGINATA 

KOGIA BREVICEPS 

BALAENA SP. 

GRAMPUS GRISEUS 

STENO BREDANENSIS 

BALAENOPTERA BOREALIS 

GLOBICEPHALA MACRORHYNCHUS 
COMMON NAME 

----------- 

SCIENTIFIC NAME 

--------------- 

SOUTHERN RIGHT WHALE 

SPERM WHALE 

SPINNER DOLPHIN 

SPOTTED DOLPHIN 

SPOTTED DOLPHIN 

STENELLINE DOLPHINS 

STRAP-TOOTHED WHALE 

STRIPED DOLPHIN, STREAKER 

TRUE'S BEAKED WHALE 

UNSPECIFIED CETACEANS 

UNSPECIFIED TOOTHED WHALES 

VAQUITA? COCHITO 

WHITE WHALE, BELUKHA 

WHITE-BEAKED DOLPHIN 

BALAENA AUSTRALIS 

PHYSETER CATODON 

STENELLA LONGIROSTRIS 

STENELLA ATTENUATA 

STENELLA FRONTALIS 

STENELLA SP. 

MESOPLODON LAYARDI I 

STENELLA COERULEOALBA 

MESOPLODON MIRUS 

CETACEA 

ODONTOCETI 

PHOCOENA SINUS 

DELPHINAPTERUS LEUCAS 

LAGENORHYNCHUS ALBIROSTRIS 

AMSTERDAM ISLAND FUR SEAL 

ARCTOCEPHALINE FUR SEALS 

ATLANTIC HARBOR SEAL 

BAIKAL SEAL 

BEARDED SEAL 

CALIFORNIA SEA LION 

CASPIAN SEAL 

CRABEATER SEAL 

DUGONG 

GRAY SEAL 

GUADALUPE FUR SEAL 

HARBOR SEALS 

HARP SEAL, GREENLAND SEAL 

HAWAIIAN MONK SEAL 

KERGUELEN FUR SEAL 

LARGHA SEAL? SPOTTED SEAL 

LEOPARD SEAL 

NORTHERN ELEPHANT SEAL 

NORTHERN FUR SEAL 

NORTHERN SEA LION, STELLER SEA LION 

PACIFIC HARBOR SEAL 

RIBBON SEAL 

RINGED SEAL 

ROSS SEAL 

SOUTH AFRICAN FUR SEAL 

SOUTH AMERICAN SEA LION 

SOUTHERN ELEPHANT SEAL 

UNSPECIFIED MARINE MAMMALS 

UNSPECIFIED PINNIPEDS 

WALRUS 

WEDDELL SEAL 

WEST INDIAN MANATEE 

WESTERN ATLANTIC HARBOR SEAL 

55 

ARCTOCEPHALUS TROPICALIS 

ARCTOCEPHALUS SP. 

PHOCA VITULINA VITULINA 

PHOCA SIBIRICA 

ERIGNATHUS BARBATUS 

ZALOPHUS CALIFORNIANUS 

PHOCA CASPICA 

LOBODON CARCINOPHAGUS 

DUGONG DUGON 

HALICHOERUS GRYPUS 

ARCTOCEPHALUS TOWNSENDI 

PHOCA VITULINA 

PHOCA GROENLANDICA 

MONACHUS SCHAUINSLANDI 

ARCTOCEPHALUS GAZELLA 

PHOCA LARGHA 

HYDRURGA LEPTONYX 

MIROUNGA ANGUSTIROSTRIS 

CALLORHINUS URSINUS 

EUMETOPIAS JUBATUS 

PHOCA VITULINA RICHARD1 

PHOCA FASCIATA 

PHOCA HISPIDA 

OMMATOPHOCA ROSS11 

ARCTOCEPHALUS PUSILLUS 

OTARIA FLAVESCENS 

MIROUNGA LEONINA 

UNSPECIFIED MARINE MAMMALS 

PINNIPEDIA 

ODOBENUS ROSMARUS 

LEPTONYCHOTES WEDDELLI 

TRICHECHUS MANATUS 

PHOCA VITULINA CONCOLOR 
TABLE 4 

SYNOPSIS OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS 

AS OF MARCH 31, 1981 

SCIENTIFIC PUBLIC SCIENTIFIC AND 

RESEARCH DISPLAY PUBLIC DISPLAY 

---------- ------- -------------- 

APRIL 1, 1981 TO MARCH 31, 1982 

SCIENTIFIC PUBLIC SCIENTIFIC AND 

RESEARCH DISPLAY PUBLIC DISPLAY 

AS OF MARCH 31, 1982 

CUMULATIVE TOTAL 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS 

SUBMITTED 

NO. OF ANIMALS REQUESTED(T0TAL) 557,076 

OF THESE: 

TAKEN BY KILLING , 2t,531 

TAKEN AND KEPT ALIVE 411 

KILLED IN CAPTIVITY 4 9 

TAKEN AND RELEASED 517,555 

FOUND DEAD 1,329 

STRANDED/EXCHANGED 99 

IMPORTS 3,072 

HARASS 13,030 

ACTION TAKEN 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS FORWARDED 

TO MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS REVIEWED 

BY MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS WITHDRAWN 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS REFERRED 

TO FISH AND WILDLIFE 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS REFERRED 

TO STATES 

NQ. OF APPLICATIONS REFERRED 

TO REGIONS 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS RESOLVED 

THROUGH AGREEMENT 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS RETURNED 

DUE TO INSUFFICIENT OR 

INAPPROPRIATE SUBMITTAL 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS DENIED 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS APPROVED 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS PENDING 

NO. OF ANIMALS APPROVED(T0TAL) 555,738 

OF THESE: 

TAKEN BY KILLING 20,014 

TAKEN AND KEPT ALIVE 38 1 

KILLED IN CAPTIVITY 4 9 

TAKEN AND RELEASED 525,405 

FOUND DEAD 847 

STRANDED/EXCHANGED 8 4 

IMPORTS 3,050 

HARASS 15,908 

NOTE: APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS INVOLVING HARASSMENT OF MARINE MAMMALS OR TAKING/IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS FOUND DEAD USUALLY 

DO NOT SPECIFY NUMBERS, AND THEREFORE ARE NOT REFLECTED IN THE NUMBERS OF ANIMALS FOR THESE CATEGORIES. 

TABLE 5 --- --- ,,--..,,,,r. nncrnnru larinr TP nrcnr xv nnnu-rm near ~f'ii7'TnNS ( I\ 

IIIIII~I~IIIIIIIIIIIIIICVIPI 

11l111l11lI11l11111I111~Irn1 

11111111111111111111111 I I IIIIIIIIlllllllllll IIII 1111111111111111I111l11 1 I 111111111111111111111l1 1 I 
I I I coo I I t dm 111 d Ill 

Ill 

I I I 

I I I llnd I1 1103 

IIII 

IIII 

Ill1 

Ill1 

II1IIIIlIl 

IllIlII1Il 

IIIIIIIIII 

IIIIIIIIII 

IIIIIIIIII 

IIIIIIIIII 

2 

*O '3 W 3: dB *+I 

ZBu"$ Z4W mw&z 

HXW 

x4ue5 

-a2 

zg%n a w 

POHZ 

WBU3 

n WO 3mau 

tj222 

ZC3p 

H H 

.agz 

0 zkzm 

m0=3 

WCCClO 

HWWU E%$ 

>3HW 

HZdU 

E.l 

Udr/)O 

444m B 3 a_ 

!Zgac\l 

W wm EWN* 

V)XH 

rnE.l!Zn 

sazg 

4WBH 

XH3& 

Qk4% 

2UwGE ha4 

mrne 

B zE+ 

ngzn EwM PC Z -w W4Wd 

ZwEE 

UNUH 

wwwm 

&Xh 

m5~4 
ED: 

3 0 

0 wxrn $! 2 E 

4 EZ 2 B Z Z tnwz 

z 2 E 

EE* 

ZWW m n 

k 13 0 u Wi3U 

nw 

3wPI 44m 

U4Z 

ZED 

.a g 0 

z a Z 0 3 vl 

we;n 

HWO 

BUIB 

z Ul 

E 2 s 

i3 

222 

EP= 

EBZ 

XWN 

: E 2 

4 0 e;'nx 

4 W €4 

= 2 iz P H 

ZUCI: 4wwd Plmw tnm~> 

2 b 2 ?3 OH 3 &3EZ 

EWB c4 0 z -cn W4md 

x cd4 HWU 

Ue;UW 

WWWP: Dixptw 

m s rn s 

2 r3 rn bad 

4cJd 

wwn 

JWO 

32ti 

H4J 

4W4 

m m u 

E E 3 WOW 

xxx 

E H E 

zzz 
SPECIES 

ATLANTIC WHITE-SIDED DOLPHIN 

BOTTLENOSE DOLPHINS - COMMON DOLPHIN 

FALSE KILLER WHALE 

FRASER'S (SARAWAK) DOLPHIN 

HARBOR PORPOISE 

KILLER WHALE 

LONG-FINNED PILOT WHALE m MELON-HEADED WHALE, ELECTRA 

PACIFIC WHITE-SIDED DOLPHIN 

PYGMY KILLER WHALE 

RISSO'S DOLPHIN, GRAMPUS 

ROUGH-TOOTHED DOLPHIN 

SHORT-FINNED PILOT WHALE 

SPINNER DOLPHIN 

SPOTTED DOLPHIN 

STRI FED DOLPHIN I STREAKER 

UNSPECIFIED CETACEANS 

WHITE WHALE, BELUKHA 

WHITE-BEAKED DOLPHIN 

TOTAL NUMBER OF ANIMALS: 

TABLE 9 

SUMMARY OF PERMITS FOR PERMANENT REMOVAL FROM THE WILD - CETACEANS 

AS OF MARCH 31, 1982 , 

ISSUED EXPIRED CURRENT REQUESTED AUTHORIZED REPLACEMENTS AUTHORIZATION TAKEN TAKE 

EXPIRED ( 1 ) REMAINING 

(1) ANIMALS TAKEN INCLUDE THOSE INADVERTENTLY KILLED DURING THE COURSE OF RESEARCH AUTHORIZING TYPES OF TAKE OTHER THAN PERMANENT 

REMOVAL. 
SPECIES 

ARCTOCEPHALINE FUR SEALS 

BAIKAL SEAL 

BEARDED SEAL 

CALIFORNIA SEA LION 

eASPIAN SEAL 

CRABEATER SEAL 

GRAY SEAL 

HARBOR SEALS 

HARP SEAL, GREENLAND SEAL 

KERGUELEN FUR SEAL 

LARGHA SEAL, SPOTTED SEAL 

LEOPARD SEAL 

NORTHERN ELEPHANT SEAL 

NORTHERN FUR SEAL 

NORTHERN SEA LION, STELLER SEA LION 

RIBBON SEAL 

RINGED SEAL 

ROSS SEAL 

SOUTH AMERICAN SEA LION 

SOUTHERN ELEPHANT SEAL 

UNSPECIFIED MARINE MAMMALS 

UNSPECIFIED PINNIPEDS 

WALRUS 

WEDDELL SEAL 

TABLE 10 

SUMMARY OF PERMITS FOR PERMANENT REMOVAL FROM THE WILD - PINNIPEDS 

AS OF MARCH 31, 1982 

ISSUED EXPIRED CURRENT REQUESTED AUTHORIZED REPLACEMENTS AUTHORIZATION TAKEN TAKE 

EXPIRED (1) REMAINING 

TOTAL NUMBER OF ANIMALS: 12.507 12,505 16 2,199 2,330 8,025 

(1) ANIMALS TAKEN INCLUDE THOSE INADVERTENTLY KILLED DURING THE COURSE OF RESEARCH AUTHORIZING TYPES OF TAKE OTHER THAN PERMANENT 

REMOVAL. 
TABLE 11- IHC COIMERCIAL CATCtl LIHITS, 1 973-1981d1 

25 th 26th 27th 28th 29th 30th 31 th 32 tt~ 33rd 

Meeting Meeti~t Meetirq Meeii ng Meetin2 

1~97 51- nvd -OWTI n-97~~ -i+mfi) 

Southern Hemi sphere 

Fin 

Mi n ke 

Sei 

Sperm (male) 

(female) 

Bryde' s 

North Pacific 

Fin 

Mi nke 

Sei and Bryde's 

Sei 

Bryde' s 

Sperm (male) 

(female) 

North Atlantic 

Fin 

CJ-I t.dinke 

Sei 

Sperm 

TOTAL 

COMMERCIAL QUOTAS 

Other _5/ 

TOTAL 

- I/ Catch limits are for Antarctic whaling season (December of year of meeting through April of following year) and al! coastal seasons of year after 

meeting. The Commission decided at the 32nd Meeting of apply quotas to coastal whaling seasons in the year in which they begin. 

- 2/ Catch limit covering Antarctic catch only (South of 40 Latitude). 

- 31 Of this figure, 622 whales cannot be taken legally by member countries because of the factory ship moratorium and/or the Indian Ocean Sanctuary. 

The remainder of the 1982 catch 1 imi ts, which is 244 animals from the Peruvian stock, in addition to 76 animals under the 1981 catch limit that were not taken may be taken between I November 1981 and 30 Apri 1 1982. 

- 4/ Provided that the remainder of 130 male sperm whales from the 1981 coastal season may be taken during the 1982 coastal season. 

- 51 Whales taken by IWC nations, but not included in quotas. 

- 61 The figure in parentheses takes into account the reductions discussed in footnote 3 above. It may be noted that catch 1 imits total1 ing 151 North 

Atlantic fin whales for 1982 are for stocks that have not been exploited since 1971. There are no indications that animals from these stocks 

(~orth Norway and Newfoundland-Labrador) wi 11 be taken in 1982. 
3y Jsxeauv 

0 

o 

0, 

In 

-? 

0 

E 

El 

DT3JXEIUV 

9ns 

ey-px3snv 

puspez 

0 

0 0-u 05: * 

N el 

! Ma N 

ssy;taq 

9anos 

eJTx3v 

adozng 

2 

ssyraq 

'4alON 

asy zaqr 

wnos 

e~yxaqr 

WzoN 

0 0 

? O, 0 0 

0 m 

hl N 

cl 

0 0 0 0 0 

a-Fsv 0 =" 0* 0 0 9 N In In 

3 

- - 

za~odmnalr~3 

JT33fV 

U al aa P UU u a al 

a a U u U 

cl clrl d a P) Ial 

83sa uoy28lndod w r! rl 6u 

,? 30 uosyfadtno3 t t P 2 82 " c) UU u 8 o ca U cl 

888 8 88 8 g 8$5:88 0- 0 .o 0. Yo, O. 0, 0, " " 

Tea 0L oA'$G mwm * a 0 rlv) 

O* 0, rn PT~M paawasz 3 8 2 0 a3 U 

U 0 

1 4 U 

f cl 

3 3 

0 

0 

0, 

rg 

0 

0, 

0 (V 

0 

0 

? 

c 

m 

0 

? 

(V rl 

0 

0 

9 

4 hl 

0 

a 

O, 

m 

0 

0 0 000 o,"? 

elm 

0 

o 

? 

rl 

v,O I- om IL) 0
g PP, P. rw 

w 

!-' 

! 

-5" 

rn 

!3 

P 

P W 

3 

0 

0 

w 

w NUyl 

.? woo 

000 

000 

1; 

3 

.? 

Comparison of 

u OD 

w * 

o 

8 

W 

Cn 

.!=? 

-00 

000 

WOO 

Population Data 

Arctic 

Circumpolar 

Asia 

Alaska 

North 

her ica 

South 

America 

North 

America 

Europe 

Africa 

South 

America 

New 

Z ealand 

W F.

?' 

o 

8 

Australia 

Sub 

Antarctic 

Estimated 

World 

Total 

)O 

w 

c. 

0 

0 

yl h) 

0 

0 

h) 

Ln 

0 

0 

W 

V1 

2 

s 

I 

o 

0 

E 

CO 

Cn 

0 

0 

0 

kY 

0 

0 

o 

0 

Antarctic 
% 5-w 5 Ez rr nc 

&%' L LW 1 n 1 

n R 

PI 3 F a e P. r. 

~330 M~HL~OS 

(w eloqdoasK3) 

Teas PapOOH 

(- snqaeayla) 

pas papleag 

(ZSXX snzaoqsy~e~) 

pas Lelg 

(- r=Joqdo~lrls~q =I BJo9d) re= uoqqrn 

000'009 

oooO~oos 

008'96 ? 000 88 

00s ' LT 

000'008 uoFT1Te 5.1 

03 03 

000'009 OOO'OOL 

000'15 000'8 t 

O ? O ? 000 89 000 82 

000'009 

03 

000'00s 

000'005 

spaaaxa 

OOsi$TT 

OOS'SOT. 

000'&sz 

000'00~ 

000 '005 

spaaaxa 

000'009 

000 O? 00s 

000 '0s 

O? 000 Ot 

000 '5'1 

O ? OOO'Z~ 000'09Z 000 01 

000'0~2 000'00~ 

3oo'osz 

asC*oJ 

aaaTd 

do3uy 

a&hj' 

(8~y~ue~uaoxB' e-) 

Teas dle~ 

%m $2 1 1 

s ," 4 (u m 

02 ~dnor, 

ooo'ooz 

m 

OD rrm r P- 0 m 

8 a 

u m 

% 

~ILNVTLV 

Teas eq3xe~ 

aepyjoqd :~ITUEJ - ameN 

@moz 

=alrno~ 

31~13vd 

00$~009 

000'00s 

008;"s 

000'09 

uoy~~rm 

L 02 9 

000 6 LO, 03 

000 '8gE 

OOg;OS$ 

000 'SEE 

000'8qO 'L 

000'000 '9 

(esydsea BJO~~) 

Teas ueydsea 

(- eJoqd) 

rqrea 

(epydsw [a=] m) 

Teas P~~UTII 

(- BJOqd) TBas (uoUIWO~) lOqlBH 

(- eJolId) 

asaq 

aaa~d 

-m'JauT 

aaa~d -1IloJu- 
POPULATION ESTIMATES 

PINNIPEDIA - Continued 

- 

Z/~est - the most' comprehensive estimates throughout the ranee of the species. 

Complete = good population estimates throughout fie range of the species. 

Incomplete = population estimates only in parts of the range of the species. 

- 3' + = A population occurs in this ares in addition to numbers 

estimated from other regions. The numbers are either unknown or the data are not available. 

- Name 

Family Phocidae 

Mediterranean monk seal 

Mediterranean monk seal 

(Monachus monachus) 

Caribbean monk seal 

(Monachus tropicalis) 

Hawaiian inonk seal 

(Monachus schauinslandi) 

Southern elephant seal 

(Mirounga leonina) 

Northern elephant seal 

(Mirounga angustirostris) 

Crabeater seal 

(Lobodon carchophagus) 

Ross seal 

(Ommatophoca rossii) 

Leopard seal 

(Hydrurga leptoyyx) 

Weddell seal 

(Leptonychotes veddelli) 

ATLANTIC 

0 O) a a 

C clr( 0 g. 3 "U cl -A 

k 1.4 84 3h 

,, 

a ol 2% sg 

500 

+?I 

300,000 

SOUTHERN OCEAN 

.A a r) r) 

a 4 rl r( 

U U 

2 Z U 0 u 14 $4 $4 '0 na a 

N 4 " 2 

300,000 

15,000,000 

220,000 

500,000 

750,000 

a 

2-4 

82: 

400 

W 

:.. 

500 

extinct 

or near ext inc t 

500 to 

1,500 

600,000 

60,000 

-5,000,000 

220,000 

500,000 

750, 

U a 

'44 n 

s,P iz 

2: 

aa 

sm 

L) 

M 

4 

% 

US $5 v 

PACIFIC 

A s ;; $3 2 

23 sg 

best 

best 

conpcon~le@ 

best 

best 

co+te 

,-te 

OOOkmte 

500 to 

1,500 

60,000 



a. 

91 w '4 91 U .cl 91wu 

a91 91 wrl a U w al 91 

9 8; w91 u 

O 9 "d 

p $ ram M r 91 0 

9 2.2 u91 u 

29';: 

C 

MU a aau 

oor 

rr m C Ma u a 

0 e :2" 

UUh 

8 PO2 rl a0 u u :ji 

$28 

d 91d w u c e w 3.2 " 

E:g 

[it.; 2 o am 0 Orl 

a a u a mw o 

8:; 

91 2 I1 1 

91 91 II url 

u2 [it. : [it.$ '4u0,e 
Appendix B 

Laws and Treaties Governing the Protection of Marine Mammals 

Every marine mammal of U.S. concern is protected by one or more 

U.S. laws or acts, and the conservation of some species is 

partially assured by international treaty or law. A summary of 

laws, conventions, and commissions designed to protect marine 

mammals follows. 

United States Laws and Treaties 

1. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972: A U.S. Federal Law 

that prohibits persons under the jurisdiction of the United 

States from taking, harassing, or importing any marine mammal or 

its byproducts into the United States, except when authorized to 

do so by special permit. Certain natives of Alaska may take 

marine mammals for subsistence use. (See introduction for a 

complete description of this Act ) . 

2. Endangered Species Act of 1973: This U.S. Federal law 

provides a program for the conservation of species that are 

either endangered now or threatened with extinction within the 

foreseeable future and their dependent ecosystems, and to 

implement international conservation conventions. With limited 

exceptions, the Act prohibits the taking, importing, exporting, 

and interstate commerce of any endangered species, as well as 

their parts or products. Exceptions include permits for 

scientific purposes or the enhancement of propagation or survival 

of the species, economic hardship exemptions, and subsistence 

taking by Alaska natives. For threatened species, the Act 

authorizes the issuance of protective regulations as necessary 

for their conservation. To accomplish its purposes, the Act 

authorizes the acquisition of land; authorizes cooperative 

agreements with States which have an adequate conservation 

program, including Federal funding of up to two-thirds (or threefourths when entered with more than one State) ; prohibits Federal 

agencies from taking any action that would jeopardize the 

continued existence of an endangered or threatened species or 

result in the destruction or modification of its critical habitat 

unless an exception is granted by the Endangered Species 

Committee; requires the development of recovery plans; and 

provides for civil and criminal penalties. 

Marine mammals under the jurisdiction of NMFS and listed as 

endangered species are the blue whale, bowhead whale, fin whale, 

gray whale, humpback whale, right whale, sei whale, sperm whale, 

Caribbean monk seal, Hawaiian monk seal, and Mediterranean monk 

seal. 
3. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of 

Wild Fauna and Flora: The Convention, which entered into force 

on July 1, 1975, provides additional protection for the following 

marine mammals under the jurisdiction of NMFS: Appendix I--blue 

whale, bowhead whale, gray whale, humpback whale, right whale, 

certain stocks of fin and sei whales, Ganges River dolphin, 

humpbacked dolphin, Indus River dolphin, white flag dolphin, 

f inless porpoise, cochito (porpoise), Caribbean monk seal, 

Hawaiian monk seal, Mediterranean monk seal, and northern 

elephant seal; Appendix 11--certain stocks of fin and sei whales, 

all other cetaceans, and the southern elephant seal, Amsterdam 

Island fpr seal, Kerguelen fur seal, New Zealand fur seal, 

Southern (South American) fur seal, and South African fur seal. 

Trade is more strictly controlled for Appendix I animals than for 

Appendix I1 animals. The U.S. Management Authority for the 

Convention (U.S. Department of the Interior) controls the import, 

export, re-export, and introduction from the sea of convention 

animals through a system of permits and enforcement. 

Implementation by regulating commerce began May 23, 1977. 

4. International Whaling Commission: The IWC was established 

under a convention signed in Washington, D.C., in December 1946. 

The membership includes all countries that catch significant 

numbers of whales except Portugal. The IWC is responsible for 

whale conservation worldwide. In recent years, the IWC has acted 

to bring world whaling under control by prohibiting the taking of 

some species, sharply reducing the authorized catches of species 

in certain areas, establishing catch quotas by stocks, and 

implementing an international observer plan for checking 

compliance with quotas and regulations at land stations and on 

factoryships. The IWC now regulates the harvest of Bryde's, fin, 

minke, sei, and sperm whales. The blue, bowhead, gray, humpback, 

and right whales are completely protected, except for some 

hunting by aborigines. 

5. Whaling Convention Act of 1949: This Act brought into force 

the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling signed 

on December 2, 1946, by the United States and certain other 

gove rnments. Article I11 of the International Convention 

established the IWC. 

6. Interim Convention on North Pacific Fur Seals: The 

convention, ratified in 1957, prohibits most citizens of Canada, 

Japan, the U.S.S.R., and United States from taking northern fur 

seals. The exceptions are aboriginal Eskimos, Aleuts, and 

Indians, who may take them only at sea and by primitive methods. 

The convention also provides for intensive research on this 

species by the four countries. The United States and U.S.S.R. 

commercially harvest northern fur seals on their breeding grounds 

and regulate the 'kills on a scientific basis. The Interim 

Convention has been extended until 1984. 

7. Fur Seal Act of 1966: This Act brought into force the Interim 

Convention on North Pacific Fur Seals. 
8. ~nternational convention for the Conservation of Antarctic 

Seals 1977: The purpose of this convention is to safeguard all 

species of ~ntarctic seals and to ensure that, it commercial 

sealing begins on floating ice of the Southern Ocean, the taking 

of any species will be subject to strict limitations to prevent 

overexploitation or damage to their ecosystem. Measures adopted 

under the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 provide only for the 

protection of seals and other animals around the shoreline of the 

Antarctic Continent, but not on floating ice. The convention of 

1972 may be applicable to crabeater, leopard, Ross, southern 

elephant, southern fur seals, and Weddell seals south of latitude 

60° south. The Ross, southern elephant, and southern fur seals 

are protected species, and no taking is permitted. 
Miscellaneous Regulations and Agreements of U.S. Interest 

1. International Convention for the Normest Atlantic Fisheries: 

Under terns ot a convention siqned in 1949. ICNAF is responsible 

for the investigation, protectio~, and conse&ation of the fisheries 

of the Northwest Atlantic. On January 1, 1977, Canada extended its 

jurisdiction over fisheries to 200 miles. TO avoid conflicts in 

1977 between Canadian and international regulations, Canada agreed to 

adopt IClW regulations for the 1978 harvest of harp seals and 

hooded seals. 

An amendment to the ICNW Convention adopted in December 1978 allms 

the Camnission to give scientific advice for management of fisheries 

within natural fishery limits if requested by a coastal state that 

is a party to the Convention. 

Canada appears to have ccanpleted the transition fran international 

to Canadian managmnt of harp and hooded seals within the limits 

of Canadian fisheries jurisdiction. The united States withdrew frcm 

the ICNAF in December 1976 to conform with provisions in the 

Magnuson Fishery conservation and Managant Act. 

2. Canadian Norwegian Agreement on Sealing: On December 22, 1971, 

these two govemts ratified an agremt on sealing and the 

conservation of seal stocks in the Northwest Atlantic. The agreement 

applies to the harp seal, but provision is made for extension to 

hooded and bearded seals and to the walrus. 

3. Harp Seal: The U.S.S.R. and Norway signed an agreemnt in 1958 

entitled "Preservation of Seals in the Greenland Sea." The agreerent 

provides for the regulation of harp seal catches by these two nations. 

The U.S.S.R., haever, has not hunted harp seals since 1965. 

4. Gray Seal: The U.S.S.R. has prohibited (since 1970) the hunting of 

gray seals for sport and by amateurs, but permits the taking of 

these animals for subsistence. Canada uses an 1886 law for authority 

in regulating the take of gray seals. England has prohibited the 

hunting of gray seals on the Farne Islands since 1932 and on 

Orkney Island since 1923. Norway has forbidden hunting at Sar 

Trondelag since 1923. Finland and Sweden offer bonuses for gray 

seals taken. 

5. Hooded Seal: Canada and Norway prohibit the taking of hooded 

seals near Newfoundland before March 10, near Jan Mayen Island 

before March 13, in Denmark Strait frm June 15 to July 15, and 

innortkrn waters frm &ch 20 to May 5. The U.S.S.R. and 

Norway in 1958 agreed to prohibit the harvest of hooded seals 

near Jan Mayen Island before March 13 and banned hunting in Denmark 

Strait, 
47 FR 51 (March 16, 1982) - Notice of determination of nations in 

conformance with U.S. regulations regarding the protection of 

porpoises. This determination allows these nations to export 

yellowfin tuna to the United States. 

3. Non-intentional take of "small numbersn of marine mammals 

(other than commercial fishing) 

46 FR 224 (November 20, 1981) - Request for information and 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking to take small numbers of 

non-deple ted marine mammals. 

47 FR 42 (March 3, 1982) - Proposed rule - Regulations governing 

small take of marine mammals incidental to specified activities. 

4. Whales 

47 FR 16 (January 25, 1982) - Notice of interagency meetings in 

preparation for the annual meeting of the International Whaling 

Commission. 

47 FR 18 (January 27, 1982) - Final rule on amendments to 

schedule of the International Convention for Regulation of 

Whaling 
Appendix C 

Notices and Regulations 

Final rules and regulations are reprinted each year in the Code 

of Federal ~egulations (CFR). Copies of the following rules, 

regulations, and notices published in the Federal Register are 

available from the Office of Marine Mammals and Endangered 

Species, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, washington, D.C. 20235. The following list does not 

include FR NO~~C~S for scientific research and public display 

permits: 

1. Tanner and agents for native handicrafts 

46 FR 71 (April 14, 1981) - Notice of Reissuance of Certificates 

of Registration to Active Tanners or Agents or Cancellation of 

Inactive Agents or Tanners Certificates. 

2. Incidental take of marine mammals 

46 FR 86 (May 5, 1981) - Notice of availability of recommended 

decision conc,erning the application of the Federation of Japan 

Salmon Fisheries Cooperative Association for a general permit 

under the MMPA. 

46 FR 94 (May 15, 1981) - Rules and regulations - Final decision, 

issuance of permit and final rule governing the taking of marine 

mammals incidental to Japanese high seas salmon fishing in the 

North Pacific Ocean and in the U.S. Fishery Conservation Zone. 

46 FR 95 (May 18, 1981) - Notice of issuance of a general permit 

to the Republic of Korea to incidentally take marine mammals. 

46 FR 160 (August 19, 1981) - Rules and Regulations - Final rules 

governing the taking and importing of porpoise incidental to 

commercial tuna purse-seine fishing in the eastern tropical 

Pacific ocean. 

46 FR 220 (November 16, 1981) - Notice of receipt of application 

from Poland for a general permit to take marine mammals 

incidental to commercial fishing operations. 

47 FR 5 (January 8, 1982) - Notice of issuance of general permits 

to Japan Deep Sea Trawlers Association to take marine mammals 

incidental to commercial fishing operations. 

47 FR 34 (February 18, 1982) - Notice of issuance of general 

permit to vessels registered to West Germany and ~ulgaria to take 

marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations. 

47 FR 46 (March 9, 1982) - Notice of issuance of general pemit 

to the Republic of Korea to take marine mammals incidental to 

c~rcial fishing operations. 
Northern fur seal bull 

Castle Rock, San Miguel Island, California 

Photo by Dana J. Seagars, NMFS,